Donor human milk for preventing necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants.

BACKGROUND: When sufficient maternal milk is not available, donor human milk or formula are the alternative forms of enteral nutrition for very preterm or very low-birthweight (VLBW) infants. Donor human milk may retain the non-nutritive benefits of maternal milk and has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or VLBW infants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of donor human milk compared with formula for preventing NEC and associated morbidity and mortality in very preterm or VLBW infants when sufficient maternal milk is not available. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care (MIC) database, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), from the earliest records to February 2024. We searched clinical trials registries and examined the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with donor human milk versus formula in very preterm (< 32 weeks' gestation) or VLBW (< 1500 g) infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors evaluated the risk of bias in the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio, risk difference, and mean difference, with associated 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcomes were NEC, late-onset invasive infection, and all-cause mortality before hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes were growth parameters and neurodevelopment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for our primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials with a total of 2296 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most trials were small (average sample size was 191 infants). All trials were performed in neonatal units in Europe or North America. Five trials were conducted more than 40 years ago; the remaining seven trials were conducted in the year 2000 or later. Some trials had methodological weaknesses, including concerns regarding masking of investigators and selective reporting. Meta-analysis showed that donor human milk reduces the risk of NEC (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.76; I² = 4%; risk difference (RD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; 11 trials, 2261 infants; high certainty evidence). Donor human milk probably has little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection (RR 1.12, 0.95 to 1.31; I² = 27%; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to -0.07; 7 trials, 1611 infants; moderate certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.31; I² = 0%; RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 9 trials, 2116 infants; moderate certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows that donor human milk reduces the risk of NEC by about half in very preterm or VLBW infants. There is probably little or no effect on late-onset invasive infection or all-cause mortality before hospital discharge.

Early pharmacological interventions for prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic stress symptoms may develop in people who have been exposed to a traumatic event. Although they are usually self-limiting in time, some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a severe and debilitating condition. Pharmacological interventions have been proposed for acute symptoms to act as an indicated prevention measure for PTSD development. As many individuals will spontaneously remit, these interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of early pharmacological interventions for prevention of PTSD in adults experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 23 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event and presenting acute traumatic stress symptoms, without restriction on their severity. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo, or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Using a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes were PTSD severity and dropouts due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included PTSD rate, functional disability and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies that considered four interventions (escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin, temazepam) and involved a total of 779 participants. The largest trial contributed 353 participants and the next largest, 120 and 118 participants respectively. The trials enrolled participants admitted to trauma centres or emergency departments. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low except for attrition rate, which we rated as high-risk. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: escitalopram versus placebo (but limited to secondary outcomes) and hydrocortisone versus placebo. One study compared escitalopram to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. There was inconclusive evidence of any difference in terms of PTSD severity (mean difference (MD) on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS, score range 0 to 136) -11.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.56 to 1.86; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence), dropouts due to adverse events (no participant left the study early due to adverse events; 1 study, 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PTSD rates (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 13.08; NNTB 37, 95% CI NNTB 15 to NNTH 1; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess functional disability or quality of life. Three studies compared hydrocortisone to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. We found inconclusive evidence on whether hydrocortisone was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo (MD on CAPS -7.53, 95% CI -25.20 to 10.13; I2 = 85%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduced the risk of developing PTSD (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.38; NNTB 14, 95% CI NNTB 8 to NNTH 5; I2 = 36%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on the risk of dropping out due to adverse events is inconclusive (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.43; 2 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether hydrocortisone might improve quality of life (MD on the SF-36 (score range 0 to 136, higher is better) 19.70, 95% CI -1.10 to 40.50; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides uncertain evidence regarding the use of escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin and temazepam for people with acute stress symptoms. It is therefore unclear whether these pharmacological interventions exert a positive or negative effect in this population. It is important to note that acute traumatic stress symptoms are often limited in time, and that the lack of data prevents the careful assessment of expected benefits against side effects that is therefore required. To yield stronger conclusions regarding both positive and negative outcomes, larger sample sizes are required. A common operational framework of criteria for inclusion and baseline assessment might help in better understanding who, if anyone, benefits from an intervention. As symptom severity alone does not provide the full picture of the impact of exposure to trauma, assessment of quality of life and functional impairment would provide a more comprehensive picture of the effects of the interventions. The assessment and reporting of side effects may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of tolerability.

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or VLBW infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Maternity and Infant Care database, and CINAHL from inception to July 2022. We searched clinical trials databases and conference proceedings, and examined the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotics with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm infants (born before 32 weeks' gestation) and VLBW infants (weighing less than 1500 g at birth). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated risk of bias of the trials, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs), with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were NEC and all-cause mortality; secondary outcome measures were late-onset invasive infection (more than 48 hours after birth), duration of hospitalisation from birth, and neurodevelopmental impairment. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials with 11,156 infants. Most trials were small (median sample size 145 infants). The main potential sources of bias were unclear reporting of methods for concealing allocation and masking caregivers or investigators in about half of the trials. The formulation of the probiotics varied across trials. The most common preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., andStreptococcus spp., alone or in combination. Very preterm or very low birth weight infants Probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.65; I² = 17%; 57 trials, 10,918 infants; low certainty). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 33 (95% CI 25 to 50). Probiotics probably reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; I² = 0%; 54 trials, 10,484 infants; moderate certainty); the NNTB was 50 (95% CI 50 to 100). Probiotics probably have little or no effect on the risk of late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I² = 22%; 49 trials, 9876 infants; moderate certainty). Probiotics may have little or no effect on neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1518 infants; low certainty). Extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants Few data were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants. In this population, probiotics may have little or no effect on NEC (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22, I² = 0%; 10 trials, 1836 infants; low certainty), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18; I² = 0%; 7 trials, 1723 infants; low certainty), or late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 7 trials, 1533 infants; low certainty). No trials provided data for measures of neurodevelopmental impairment in extremely preterm or ELBW infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate certainty of evidence for the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or VLBW infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or ELBW infants, there is a need for further large, high-quality trials to provide evidence of sufficient validity and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Mental Health First Aid as a tool for improving mental health and well-being.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental health problems is high, and they have a wide-ranging and deleterious effect on many sectors in society. As well as the impact on individuals and families, mental health problems in the workplace negatively affect productivity. One of the factors that may exacerbate the impact of mental health problems is a lack of 'mental health literacy' in the general population. This has been defined as 'knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders, which aid their recognition, management, or prevention'. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme developed in Australia in 2000; its aim is to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The course has been adapted for various contexts, but essentially covers the symptoms of various mental health disorders, along with associated mental health crisis situations. The programmes also teach trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. It is theorised that improved knowledge will encourage the trainees to provide support, and encourage people to actively seek help, thereby leading to improvements in mental health. This review focuses on the effects of MHFA on the mental health and mental well-being of individuals and communities in which MHFA training has been provided. We also examine the impact on mental health literacy. This information is essential for decision-makers considering the role of MHFA training in their organisations. OBJECTIVES: To examine mental health and well-being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of MHFA training on individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered. SEARCH METHODS: We developed a sensitive search strategy to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MHFA training. This approach used bibliographic databases searching, using a search strategy developed for Ovid MEDLINE (1946 -), and translated across to Ovid Embase (1974 -), Ovid PsycINFO (1967 -), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched online clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), grey literature and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. Searches are current to 13th June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention, active or attention control (such as first aid courses), waiting list control, or alternative mental health literacy interventions. Participants were individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered and MHFA trainees. Primary outcomes included mental health and well-being of individuals, mental health service usage and adverse effects of MHFA training. Secondary outcomes related to individuals, MHFA trainees, and communities or organisations in which MHFA training has been delivered DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the key results using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving a total of 22,604 participants were included in the review. Fifteen studies compared MHFA training with no intervention/waiting list, two studies compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention, and four studies compared MHFA training with an active or an attention control intervention. Our primary time point was between six and 12 months. When MHFA training was compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.28; 3 studies; 3939 participants). We judged all the results that contributed to this outcome as being at high risk of bias. No study measured mental health service usage at six to 12 months. We did not find published data on adverse effects. Only one study with usable data compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention. The study did not measure outcomes in individuals in the community. It also did not measure outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. Four studies with usable data compared MHFA training to an active or attention control. None of the studies measured outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot draw conclusions about the effects of MHFA training on our primary outcomes due to the lack of good quality evidence. This is the case whether it is compared to no intervention, to an alternative mental health literacy intervention, or to an active control. Studies are at high risk of bias and often not sufficiently large to be able to detect differences.

Pharmacological treatments in panic disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines. OBJECTIVES: To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.

Predicting relapse or recurrence of depression: systematic review of prognostic models.

BACKGROUND: Relapse and recurrence of depression are common, contributing to the overall burden of depression globally. Accurate prediction of relapse or recurrence while patients are well would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may effectively guide the allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. AIMS: To review prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults with remitted major depressive disorder. METHOD: We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2021. We included development and external validation studies of multivariable prognostic models. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible prognostic model studies (11 unique prognostic models): 8 model development-only studies, 3 model development and external validation studies and 1 external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available and meta-analysis was therefore not necessary. Eleven out of the 12 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias and none examined clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS: Due to high risk of bias of the included studies, poor predictive performance and limited external validation of the models identified, presently available clinical prediction models for relapse and recurrence of depression are not yet sufficiently developed for deploying in clinical settings. There is a need for improved prognosis research in this clinical area and future studies should conform to best practice methodological and reporting guidelines.

Early pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and debilitating condition. Several pharmacological interventions have been proposed with the aim to prevent or mitigate it. These interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability, given that not all individuals exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. There are different possible approaches to preventing PTSD; universal prevention is aimed at individuals at risk of developing PTSD on the basis of having been exposed to a traumatic event, irrespective of whether they are showing signs of psychological difficulties. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for universal prevention of PTSD in adults exposed to a traumatic event. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 13 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. In a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies which considered eight interventions (hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega-3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare enteral formula, Oxepa enteral formula and 5-hydroxytryptophan) and involved 2023 participants, with a single trial contributing 1244 participants. Eight studies enrolled participants from emergency departments or trauma centres or similar settings. Participants were exposed to a range of both intentional and unintentional traumatic events. Five studies considered participants in the context of intensive care units with traumatic events consisting of severe physical illness. Our concerns about risk of bias in the included studies were mostly due to high attrition and possible selective reporting. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: hydrocortisone versus placebo, but limited to secondary outcomes; and propranolol versus placebo. No study compared hydrocortisone to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, serious inconsistency amongst the studies' results, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (SMD -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.61 to 0.59; I2 = 83%; 3 studies, 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study provided data on dropout rates due to side effects at three months post-traumatic event. The evidence on whether propranolol was more effective than placebo in reducing the probability of experiencing PTSD at three months after the traumatic event is inconclusive, because of serious risk of bias amongst the included studies, and very serious imprecision of the estimate of effect (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92; 3 studies, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability or quality of life.  Only one study compared gabapentin to placebo at the primary endpoint of three months after the traumatic event, with inconclusive evidence in terms of both PTSD severity and probability of experiencing PTSD, because of imprecision of the effect estimate, serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (very low-certainty evidence). We found no data on dropout rates due to side effects, functional disability or quality of life. For the remaining comparisons, the available data are inconclusive or missing in terms of PTSD severity reduction and dropout rates due to adverse events. No study assessed functional disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides uncertain evidence only regarding the use of hydrocortisone, propranolol, dexamethasone, omega-3 fatty acids, gabapentin, paroxetine, PulmoCare formula, Oxepa formula, or 5-hydroxytryptophan as universal PTSD prevention strategies. Future research might benefit from larger samples, better reporting of side effects and inclusion of quality of life and functioning measures.

Behavioural and cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

BACKGROUND: Autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) is an increasingly recognised neurodevelopmental condition; that is, a neurologically-based condition which interferes with the acquisition, retention or application of specific skills. ASD is characterised by challenges with socialisation and communication, and by stereotyped and repetitive behaviours. A stereotyped behaviour is one which is repeated over and over again and which seems not to have any useful function. ASD often co-occurs with mental health disorders, including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). People with ASD may show certain cognitive differences (i.e. differences in ways of thinking) which influence their response to therapies. Thus, there is a need for evidence-based guidelines to treat mental health issues in this group. OCD, a common condition characterised by repeated obsessional thoughts and compulsive acts, occurs with greater frequency in persons with ASD than in the general population. Genetic, anatomic, neurobiological and psychological factors have been proposed to explain this co-occurrence. However, care should be taken to distinguish stereotyped and repetitive behaviours characteristic of ASD from obsessive compulsive acts in OCD. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended treatment for OCD, but studies have suggested that this treatment may be less effective in those with OCD co-occurring with ASD. Hence, modifications to CBT treatment may be helpful when treating OCD co-occurring with ASD to optimise outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of behavioural and cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, five other bibliographic databases, international trial registries and other sources of grey literature (to 24 August 2020). We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews to identify additional studies missed from the original electronic searches. We contacted subject experts for further information when needed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over, cluster- and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving both adults and children with diagnoses of OCD and ASD. We included studies of participants with co-occurring conditions (i.e. those experiencing other mental illnesses or neurodevelopmental conditions at the same time), but we did not include individuals who had a co-occurring global learning difficulty. Treatment could be in any setting or format and include behavioural therapy (BT) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which may have been adapted for those with ASD. Comparator interventions included no treatment, waiting list, attention placebo (where the control group receives non-specific aspects of therapy, but not the active ingredient) and treatment as usual (TAU, where the control group receives the usual treatment, according to accepted standards). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. The authors extracted relevant data from the one eligible study, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (GRADE). Outcomes of interest were changes in OCD symptoms and treatment completion (primary outcome), and severity of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and behavioural difficulties, as well as degree of family accommodation (secondary outcomes). We did not conduct meta-analyses as only one study met the selection criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included only one RCT of 46 participants in our analysis. This study compared CBT for OCD in persons with high-functioning ASD with a control group who received anxiety management only. There were no differences in rates of treatment completion between the CBT (87%) and anxiety management (87%) groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence). Behavioural difficulties were not included as an outcome measure in the study. This study showed that there may be a benefit at the end of treatment favouring CBT compared with anxiety management in OCD symptoms (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% CI -8.02 to 2.02), depression symptoms (MD -1.80, 95% CI -11.50 to 7.90), anxiety symptoms (MD -3.20, 95% CI -11.38 to 4.98), and quality of life (MD 5.20, 95% CI -1.41 to 11.81), but the evidence was of low certainty.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is limited regarding the efficacy of CBT for treatment of OCD in ASD. There is much scope for future study, not only examining the efficacy of CBT for OCD in ASD, but also the particular ways that OCD manifests in and affects people with ASD and the role of the family in treatment response.

Prognostic models for predicting relapse or recurrence of major depressive disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Relapse (the re-emergence of depressive symptoms after some level of improvement but preceding recovery) and recurrence (onset of a new depressive episode after recovery) are common in depression, lead to worse outcomes and quality of life for patients and exert a high economic cost on society. Outcomes can be predicted by using multivariable prognostic models, which use information about several predictors to produce an individualised risk estimate. The ability to accurately predict relapse or recurrence while patients are well (in remission) would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may improve overall treatment outcomes for patients by enabling more efficient allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the predictive performance of prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission or recovery in adults with major depressive disorder who meet criteria for remission or recovery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature, screened the reference lists of included studies and performed a forward citation search. There were no restrictions applied to the searches by date, language or publication status . SELECTION CRITERIA: We included development and external validation (testing model performance in data separate from the development data) studies of any multivariable prognostic models (including two or more predictors) to predict relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults (aged 18 years and over) with remitted depression, in any clinical setting. We included all study designs and accepted all definitions of relapse, recurrence and other related outcomes. We did not specify a comparator prognostic model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references; extracted data (using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS)); and assessed risks of bias of included studies (using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST)). We referred any disagreements to a third independent review author. Where we found sufficient (10 or more) external validation studies of an individual model, we planned to perform a meta-analysis of its predictive performance, specifically with respect to its calibration (how well the predicted probabilities match the observed proportions of individuals that experience the outcome) and discrimination (the ability of the model to differentiate between those with and without the outcome). Recommendations could not be qualified using the GRADE system, as guidance is not yet available for prognostic model reviews. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible prognostic model studies (10 unique prognostic models). Seven were model development studies; three were model development and external validation studies; and one was an external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available for any of the models and, meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Ten out of the 11 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias. Common weaknesses included insufficient sample size, inappropriate handling of missing data and lack of information about discrimination and calibration. One paper (Klein 2018) was at low overall risk of bias and presented a prognostic model including the following predictors: number of previous depressive episodes, residual depressive symptoms and severity of the last depressive episode. The external predictive performance of this model was poor (C-statistic 0.59; calibration slope 0.56; confidence intervals not reported). None of the identified studies examined the clinical utility (net benefit) of the developed model. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the 10 prognostic models identified (across 11 studies), only four underwent external validation. Most of the studies (n = 10) were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias, and the one study that was at low risk of bias presented a model with poor predictive performance. There is a need for improved prognostic research in this clinical area, with future studies conforming to current best practice recommendations for prognostic model development/validation and reporting findings in line with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.

New generation antidepressants for depression in children and adolescents: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications. OBJECTIVES: To investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used "informative statements" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a "small and unimportant" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo). There were "small and unimportant" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence). Results were similar across other outcomes of benefit. In most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may "at least slightly" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may "at least slightly" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an "at least slightly" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option. Children and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 Feb 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 17 Feb 2020), Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid (1971 to 17 Feb 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 18 Feb 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotic supplementation with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset infection, and severe neurodevelopmental impairment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 trials in which 10,812 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 149). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were the main potential sources of bias in about half of the trials. Trials varied by the formulation of the probiotics. The most commonly used preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., and Streptococcus spp. alone or in combinations. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65 (54 trials, 10,604 infants; I² = 17%); RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 33, 95% CI 25 to 50. Evidence was assessed as low certainty because of the limitations in trials design, and the presence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with publication bias. Sensitivity meta-analysis of trials at low risk of bias showed a reduced risk of NEC: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89 (16 trials, 4597 infants; I² = 25%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100. Meta-analyses showed that probiotics probably reduce mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89; (51 trials, 10,170 infants; I² = 0%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 50 to 100), and late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; (47 trials, 9762 infants; I² = 19%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100). Evidence was assessed as moderate certainty for both these outcomes because of the limitations in trials design. Sensitivity meta-analyses of 16 trials (4597 infants) at low risk of bias did not show an effect on mortality or infection. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may have little or no effect on severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26 (five trials, 1518 infants; I² = 0%). The certainty on this evidence is low because of limitations in trials design and serious imprecision of effect estimate. Few data (from seven of the trials) were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants. Meta-analyses did not show effects on NEC, death, or infection (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate level of certainty about the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants, further, large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient quality and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural activation is a brief psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to change the way a person interacts with their environment. Behavioural activation is increasingly receiving attention as a potentially cost-effective intervention for depression, which may require less resources and may be easier to deliver and implement than other types of psychotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with other psychological therapies for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with medication for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/placebo no treatment for depression in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CCMD-CTR (all available years), CENTRAL (current issue), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards), Ovid EMBASE (1980 onwards), and Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards) on the 17 January 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 'behavioural activation', or the main elements of behavioural activation for depression in participants with clinically diagnosed depression or subthreshold depression. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches. We searched international trials registries via the World Health Organization's trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression or symptoms of depression in adults aged 18 or over. We excluded RCTs conducted in inpatient settings and with trial participants selected because of a physical comorbidity. Studies were included regardless of reported outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments were also performed by two review authors in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies with 5495 participants were included; 51 parallel group RCTs and two cluster-RCTs. We found moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation had greater short-term efficacy than treatment as usual (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 7 RCTs, 1533 participants), although this difference was no longer evident in sensitivity analyses using a worst-case or intention-to-treat scenario. Compared with waiting list, behavioural activation may be more effective, but there were fewer data in this comparison and evidence was of low certainty (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.09; 1 RCT, 26 participants). No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for behavioural activation versus placebo and behavioural activation versus no treatment. We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment efficacy between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 601 participants). Fewer data were available for other comparators. No evidence of a difference in short term-efficacy was found between behavioural activation and third-wave CBT (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 98 participants; low certainty), and psychodynamic therapy (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99; 1 RCT,60 participants; very low certainty). Behavioural activation was more effective than humanistic therapy (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.95; 2 RCTs, 46 participants; low certainty) and medication (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.76; 1 RCT; 141 participants; moderate certainty), but both of these results were based on a small number of trials and participants. No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for comparisons between behavioural activation versus interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapies. There was moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation might have lower treatment acceptability (based on dropout rate) than treatment as usual in the short term, although the data did not confirm a difference and results lacked precision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31; 14 RCTs, 2518 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence did not suggest any difference in short-term acceptability between behavioural activation and waiting list (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93; 8 RCTs. 359 participants), no treatment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.09; 3 RCTs, 187 participants), medication (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; 2 RCTs, 243 participants), or placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67; 1 RCT; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). No evidence on treatment acceptability was available comparing behavioural activation versus psychodynamic therapy. Low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (dropout rate) between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 12 RCTs, 1195 participants), third-wave CBT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, 147 participants); humanistic therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.55; 2 RCTs, 96 participants) (very low certainty), and interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, 123 participants). Results from medium- and long-term primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are summarised in the text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that behavioural activation may be more effective than humanistic therapy, medication, and treatment as usual, and that it may be no less effective than CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or being placed on a waiting list. However, our confidence in these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (based on dropouts) between behavioural activation and most comparison groups (CBT, humanistic therapy, waiting list, placebo, medication, no treatment or treatment as usual). Again, our confidence in all these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. No data were available about the efficacy of behaioural activation compared with placebo, or about treatment acceptability comparing behavioural activation and psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal, cognitive analytic and integrative therapies. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and better quality RCTs of behavioural activation and by assessing working mechanisms of behavioural activation.

C-reactive protein for diagnosing late-onset infection in newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Late-onset infection is the most common serious complication associated with hospital care for newborn infants. Because confirming the diagnosis by microbiological culture typically takes 24 to 48 hours, the serum level of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) measured as part of the initial investigation is used as an adjunctive rapid test to guide management in infants with suspected late-onset infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of serum CRP measurement in detecting late-onset infection in newborn infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index to September 2017), conference proceedings, previous reviews, and the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cohort and cross-sectional studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of serum CRP levels for the detection of late-onset infection (occurring more than 72 hours after birth) in newborn infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and extracted data to estimate diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) models. We assessed heterogeneity by examining variability of study estimates and overlap of the 95% confidence interval (CI) in forest plots of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 20 studies (1615 infants). Most were small, single-centre, prospective cohort studies conducted in neonatal units in high- or middle-income countries since the late 1990s. Risk of bias in the included studies was generally low with independent assessment of index and reference tests. Most studies used a prespecified serum CRP threshold level as the definition of a 'positive' index test (typical cut-off level between 5 mg/L and 10 mg/L) and the culture of a pathogenic micro-organism from blood as the reference standard.At median specificity (0.74), sensitivity was 0.62 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.73). Heterogeneity was evident in the forest plots but it was not possible to conduct subgroup or meta-regression analyses by gestational ages, types of infection, or types of infecting micro-organism. Covariates for whether studies used a predefined threshold or not, and whether studies used a standard threshold of between 5 mg/L and 10 mg/L, were not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The serum CRP level at initial evaluation of an infant with suspected late-onset infection is unlikely to be considered sufficiently accurate to aid early diagnosis or select infants to undergo further investigation or treatment with antimicrobial therapy or other interventions.

Pharmacy-based management for depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: It is common for peoples not to take antidepressant medication as prescribed, with around 50% of people likely to prematurely discontinue taking their medication after six months. Community pharmacists may be well placed to have a role in antidepressant management because of their unique pharmacotherapeutic knowledge and ease of access for people. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to offer proactive interventions to people with depression or depressive symptoms. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of existing pharmacist-based interventions is not yet well understood. The degree to which a pharmacy-based management approach might be beneficial, acceptable to people, and effective as part of the overall management for those with depression is, to date, unclear. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will help answer these questions and add important knowledge to the currently sparse evidence base. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of pharmacy-based management interventions compared with active control (e.g. patient information materials or any other active intervention delivered by someone other than the pharmacist or the pharmacy team), waiting list, or treatment as usual (e.g. standard pharmacist advice or antidepressant education, signposting to support available in primary care services, brief medication counselling, and/or (self-)monitoring of medication adherence offered by a healthcare professional outside the pharmacy team) at improving depression outcomes in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR) to June 2016; the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018); and Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to December 2018. We searched theses and dissertation databases and international trial registers for unpublished/ongoing trials. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs and cluster-RCTs where a pharmacy-based intervention was compared with treatment as usual, waiting list, or an alternative intervention in the management of depression in adults over 16 years of age. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes at any time point: depression symptom change, acceptability of the intervention, diagnosis of depression, non-adherence to medication, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, social functioning, or adverse events.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment (including GRADE). We discussed disagreements within the team until we reached consensus. Where data did not allow meta-analyses, we synthesised results narratively.  MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (2215 participants) met the inclusion criteria and compared pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual. Two studies (291 participants) also included an active control (both used patient information leaflets providing information about the prescribed antidepressant). Neither of these studies reported depression symptom change. A narrative synthesis of results on acceptability of the intervention was inconclusive, with one study reporting better acceptability of pharmacy-based management and the other better acceptability of the active control. One study reported that participants in the pharmacy-based management group had better medication adherence than the control participants. One study reported adverse events with no difference between groups. The studies reported no other outcomes. Meta-analyses comparing pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual showed no evidence of a difference in the effect of the intervention on depression symptom change (dichotomous data; improvement in symptoms yes/no: risk ratio (RR), 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 4 RCTs, 475 participants; moderate-quality evidence; continuous data: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 718 participants; high-certainty evidence), or acceptability of the intervention (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45; 12 RCTs, 2072 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of non-adherence was reduced in participants receiving pharmacy-based management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87; 6 RCTs, 911 participants; high-certainty evidence). We were unable to meta-analyse data on diagnosis of depression, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, or social functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference between pharmacy-based management for depression in adults compared with treatment as usual in facilitating depression symptom change. Based on numbers of participants leaving the trials early, there may be no difference in acceptability between pharmacy-based management and controls. However, there was uncertainty due to the low-certainty evidence.

Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Parkinson's disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6-12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement. Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson's disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON. Methods: We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device. Results: Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Limitations: The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology. Conclusions: Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Parkinson's disease is a brain condition causing loss of co-ordination and movement problems. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for early disease. Patients should be seen by a specialist every 6­12 months to assess their treatment needs. Wearable devices (like smart watches) may aid management by directly monitoring patients for disease symptoms including tremor and slowness of movement (bradykinesia), or side effects of treatment like involuntary movement (dyskinesia). This assessment considered the clinical and economic value of five wearable devices: Personal KinetiGraph, STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor. We searched medical databases to find all studies of the five devices. We assessed the quality of these studies and reviewed their results. We found 77 studies of the devices. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in symptoms. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical value. There was insufficient evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor to draw any conclusions. An economic analysis was conducted to investigate whether using any of these technologies is economically viable. The economic analysis found that the quality-of-life benefits generated by remote monitoring devices were small relative to the additional costs of implementing them in the NHS. As such, none of the remote monitoring devices were good value for money when compared with the current standard of care.

An international systematic review and meta-analysis of multisession psychosocial interventions compared with educational or minimal interventions on the HIV sex risk behaviors of people who use drugs.

This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the effectiveness of multisession psychosocial interventions compared with educational interventions and minimal interventions in reducing sexual risk in people who use drugs (51 studies; 19,209 participants). We conducted comprehensive searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsychINFO 1998-2012). Outcomes (unprotected sex, condom use, or a composite outcome) were extracted by two authors and synthesised using meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore heterogeneity. Multisession psychosocial interventions had modest additional benefits compared to educational interventions (K = 46; OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77, 0.96), and large positive effects compared to minimal interventions (K = 7; OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.46, 0.78). Comparison with previous meta-analyses suggested limited progress in recent years in developing more effective interventions. Multisession psychosocial and educational interventions provided similar modest sexual risk reduction justifying offering educational interventions in settings with limited exposure to sexual risk reduction interventions, messages, and resources.

Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Substantial uncertainty exists about prevalence of mood disorders in patients with cancer, including those in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We aimed to quantitatively summarise the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustments disorders in these settings. METHODS: We searched Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Knowledge for studies that examined well-defined depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in adults with cancer in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings. We restricted studies to those using psychiatric interviews. Studies were reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and a proportion meta-analysis was done. FINDINGS: We identified 24 studies with 4007 individuals across seven countries in palliative-care settings. Meta-analytical pooled prevalence of depression defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria was 16·5% (95% CI 13·1-20·3), 14·3% (11·1-17·9) for DSM-defined major depression, and 9·6% (3·6-18·1) for DSM-defined minor depression. Prevalence of adjustment disorder alone was 15·4% (10·1-21·6) and of anxiety disorders 9·8% (6·8-13·2). Prevalence of all types of depression combined was of 24·6% (17·5-32·4), depression or adjustment disorder 24·7% (20·8-28·8), and all types of mood disorder 29·0% (10·1-52·9). We identified 70 studies with 10,071 individuals across 14 countries in oncological and haematological settings. Prevalence of depression by DSM or ICD criteria was 16·3% (13·4-19·5); for DSM-defined major depression it was 14·9% (12·2-17·7) and for DSM-defined minor depression 19·2% (9·1-31·9). Prevalence of adjustment disorder was 19·4% (14·5-24·8), anxiety 10·3% (5·1-17·0), and dysthymia 2·7% (1·7-4·0). Combination diagnoses were common; all types of depression occurred in 20·7% (12·9-29·8) of patients, depression or adjustment disorder in 31·6% (25·0-38·7), and any mood disorder in 38·2% (28·4-48·6). There were few consistent correlates of depression: there was no effect of age, sex, or clinical setting and inadequate data to examine cancer type and illness duration. INTERPRETATION: Interview-defined depression and anxiety is less common in patients with cancer than previously thought, although some combination of mood disorders occurs in 30-40% of patients in hospital settings without a significant difference between palliative-care and non-palliative-care settings. Clinicians should remain vigilant for mood complications, not just depression. FUNDING: None.

Pharmacological interventions for people with depression and chronic physical health problems: systematic review and meta-analyses of safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant drugs are widely used in the treatment of depression in people with chronic physical health problems. AIMS: To examine evidence related to efficacy, tolerability and safety of antidepressants for people with depression and with chronic physical health problems. METHOD: Meta-analyses of randomised controlled efficacy trials of antidepressants in depression in chronic physical health conditions. Systematic review of safety studies. RESULTS: Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria (5794 participants). In placebo-controlled studies, antidepressants showed a significant advantage in respect to remission and/or response: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) risk ratio (RR) = 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) for remission, RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) for response; tricyclics RR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.40-1.25 (not significant)) for remission, RR = 0.55 (95% 0.43-0.70) for response. Both groups of drugs were less well tolerated than placebo (leaving study early due to adverse effects) for SSRIs RR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.16-2.78), for tricyclics RR = 2.00 (95% CI 0.99-3.57). Only SSRIs were shown to improve quality of life. Direct comparisons of SSRIs and tricyclics revealed no advantage for either group for remission, response, effect size or tolerability. Effectiveness studies suggest a neutral or beneficial effect on mortality for antidepressants in participants with recent myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressants are efficacious and safe in the treatment of depression occurring in the context of chronic physical health problems. The SSRIs are probably the antidepressants of first choice given their demonstrable effect on quality of life and their apparent safety in cardiovascular disease.

Clinical recognition of dementia and cognitive impairment in primary care: a meta-analysis of physician accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the ability of the general practitioners (GPs) to recognize a spectrum of cognitive impairment from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to severe dementia in routine practice using their own clinical judgment. METHOD: Using PRISMA criteria, a meta-analysis of studies testing clinical judgment and clinical documentation was conducted against semi-structured interviews (for dementia) and cognitive tests (for cognitive impairment). We located 15 studies reporting on dementia, seven studies that examined recognition of broadly defined cognitive impairment, and eight regarding MCI. RESULTS: By clinical judgment, clinicians were able to identify 73.4% of people with dementia and 75.5% of those without dementia but they made correct annotations in medical records in only 37.9% of cases (and 90.5% of non-cases). For cognitive impairment, detection sensitivity was 62.8% by clinician judgment but 33.1% according to medical records. Specificity was 92.6% for those without cognitive impairment by clinical judgment. Regarding MCI, GPs recognized 44.7% of people with MCI, although this was recorded in medical notes only 10.9% of the time. Their ability to identify healthy individuals without MCI was between 87.3% and 95.5% (detection specificity). CONCLUSION: GPs have considerable difficulty identifying those with MCI and those with mild dementia and are generally poor at recording such diagnoses in medical records.

Which version of the geriatric depression scale is most useful in medical settings and nursing homes? Diagnostic validity meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) has been evaluated in individual studies, but its validity and added value in medical settings and nursing homes is uncertain. Therefore, the authors conducted a meta-analysis, analyzing the diagnostic accuracy of long, short, and ultrashort versions of the GDS and stratified this into those with and without cognitive impairment. METHODS: A comprehensive search identified 69 studies that measured the diagnostic validity of the GDS against a semistructured psychiatric interview, and of these, 43 analyses (in 36 publications) took place inmedical settings. Twenty-one studies examined the GDS30, 12 studies examined the GDS15, and 3 examined the GDS4(/)5. For comparison, the authors also summarized studies examining unassisted clinical judgment. Heterogeneity was moderate to high; therefore, random effects meta-analysis was used. RESULTS: Across all studies, the prevalence of late-life depression was 29.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 24.7%­33.9%), with no difference between inpatients, outpatients, and nursing homes. Diagnostic accuracy of the GDS30 aftermeta-analytic weighting was given by a sensitivity of 81.9% (95% CI = 76.4%­86.9%) and a specificity of 77.7% (95% CI = 73.0%­82.1%). For the GDS15, sensitivity was 84.3% (95% CI = 79.7%­88.4%) and specificity was 73.8% (95% CI = 68.0%­79.2%). For the GDS4(/)5, the sensitivity and specificity were 92.5% (95% CI = 85.5%­97.4%) and 77.2% (95% CI = 66.6%­86.3%), respectively. Results were not significantly influenced by the presence of dementia. Concerning added value, when identification using the GDS was compared with routine clinicians' ability to diagnose late-life depressions, at a prevalence of 30%, of every 100 attendees, the GDS30 would help correctly identify an additional 22 people as depressed but at a cost of 13 additional false positives. The GDS15 performed the same as GDS30 but with 15 false positives. The ultrashort form would help identify an additional 25 true positives with only 10 false positives. Thus, the best option when choosing between versions of the GDS seems to be the GDS4(/)5. CONCLUSION: All versions of the GDS yield potential added value in medical settings, but the GDS4(/)5 is the most efficient. In nursing homes, given an absence of data on the GDS4(/)5, the GDS15 may be preferred until more studies are reported.