Digitalising Specialist Smoking Cessation Support in Pregnancy: Views of Pregnant Smokers.

INTRODUCTION: Unsupported attempts to quit smoking during pregnancy have a low success rate. Chances of quitting successfully are higher with an interpersonal treatment programme but there is low uptake of this in the United Kingdom (UK). Delivering a pregnancy-specific treatment programme digitally may provide an alternative treatment route. This study explored pregnant smokers' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to using digital cessation support, along with identifying modes of delivery and engagement enhancers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample of 25 participants with recent experience of attempting to quit smoking in pregnancy, aged 20 - 40, from the UK. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used. RESULTS: Digital smoking cessation support, particularly a smartphone app, for pregnancy was felt to overcome many barriers to engaging with interpersonal support, being viewed as more convenient and non-judgemental, providing better consistency of advice, and enhancing privacy and autonomy. However, some participants felt that removing access to a human could undermine a digital support package and reduce engagement. Popular engagement enhancers included self-monitoring (e.g. digital recording of smoking; smartphone-linked carbon monoxide monitoring), online communities, and remote access to nicotine substitution options. Digital support was viewed as having potential as a stand-alone intervention or working in conjunction with standard interpersonal treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the investigation of a digital support package as both a stand-alone and adjunct to standard interpersonal cessation support in pregnancy to increase the proportion of pregnant smokers who make a supported quit attempt. IMPLICATIONS: In many countries like the UK, there are few smoking cessation options routinely available that provide effective support for smoking cessation in pregnancy. To maximise impact, health services need an effective range of strategies to engage with and support quit attempts made by all pregnant smokers, particularly as interpersonal support options are not often well engaged with. Development of a pregnancy-specific digital support package for smoking cessation in pregnancy may represent a means to help address this gap.

The Effectiveness of Text Support for Stopping Smoking in Pregnancy (MiQuit): Multi-Trial Pooled Analysis Investigating Effect Moderators and Mechanisms of Action.

INTRODUCTION: Digital cessation support appeals to pregnant smokers. In two pooled RCTs, MiQuit, a pregnancy-specific tailored text messaging intervention, did not show effectiveness for validated prolonged abstinence. However, secondary outcomes and potential moderators and mediators have not been investigated. We aimed to determine, using pooled RCT data: (1) MiQuit effectiveness on a range of smoking outcomes; (2) whether baseline tobacco dependence or quit motivation moderate effectiveness; (3) whether hypothesized mechanisms of action (quitting determination, self-efficacy, baby harm beliefs, lapse prevention strategies) mediate effectiveness. METHODS: Pooled data analysis from two procedurally identical RCTs comparing MiQuit (N = 704) to usual care (N = 705). Participants were smokers, <25 weeks pregnant, recruited from 40 English antenatal clinics. Outcomes included self-reported 7-day abstinence at 4 weeks post-baseline and late pregnancy, and prolonged abstinence. Late pregnancy outcomes were also biochemically validated. We used hierarchical regression and structural equation modeling. RESULTS: MiQuit increased self-reported, 7-day abstinence at 4 weeks (OR = 1.73 [95% CI 1.10-2.74]) and was borderline significant at late pregnancy (OR = 1.34 [0.99-1.82]) but not for prolonged or validated outcomes. Effectiveness was not moderated by baseline dependence (heaviness of smoking "low" vs. "moderate-high") or motivation (planning to quit ≤30 days [high] vs. >30 days [low]), but effects on self-reported outcomes were larger for the high motivation sub-group. MiQuit had a small effect on mean lapse prevention strategies (MiQuit 8.6 [SE 0.17], UC 8.1 [SE 0.17]; P = .030) but not other mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: MiQuit increased short-term but not prolonged or validated abstinence and may be most effective for those motivated to quit sooner. IMPLICATIONS: Digital cessation support appeals to pregnant smokers. MiQuit, a tailored, theory-guided text messaging program for quitting smoking in pregnancy, has not shown effectiveness for validated prolonged abstinence in two previous RCTs but its impact on other smoking outcomes and potential mechanisms of action are unknown. When pooling trial data, MiQuit increased self-reported short-term abstinence, including making a quit attempt and abstinence at 4-week follow-up, but not late pregnancy, sustained, or validated abstinence. MiQuit appeared effective at late pregnancy for participants with high quitting motivation, but its mechanisms of action remain uncertain. Additional support components are likely required to enhance effectiveness.

A rapid literature review of the effect of alcohol marketing on people with, or at increased risk of, an alcohol problem.

AIMS: To explore the effect or potential effect of alcohol marketing in people with an alcohol use disorder, in recovery from an alcohol use disorder, and hazardous and harmful drinkers. METHODS: Relevant literature was identified by searching Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and PsycINFO (OVID) and relevant websites. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were eligible for inclusion. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the findings. RESULTS: The review included 10 studies. Two quantitative and three qualitative studies focused on participants recovering from an alcohol use disorder and five quantitative studies on those with hazardous or harmful consumption levels of alcohol. The effect of alcohol advertising on alcohol use was only assessed in one study, a small experimental study of young adult heavy drinkers, which found no significant association. Studies looking at other outcomes found that people with or at risk of alcohol problems were likely to notice alcohol advertisements and find them appealing, and that advertisements may have an effect on positive alcohol-related emotions and cognitions. Among people in recovery from an alcohol use disorder, findings suggested that there could be an effect on craving, and that alcohol marketing may be perceived to trigger a desire to drink. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol marketing is likely to have an effect on alcohol consumption in people with, or at increased risk of, an alcohol problem. Studies have also found that alcohol marketing is perceived to act as a trigger by people in recovery from alcohol problems. SUMMARY: A rapid review explored the effect of alcohol marketing in people with an alcohol use disorder, in recovery from an alcohol use disorder, and hazardous and harmful drinkers. The findings of the 10 included studies suggest that an effect of alcohol marketing in these populations is likely.

Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise.

PURPOSE: Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis drugs are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate treatment regimens for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. METHODS: A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered from a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens and from recent published international clinical guidelines. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions. The third step prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. The top 10 includes questions relating to which people should be offered intravenous bisphosphonates first line (1); optimal duration of treatment (2); the role of bone turnover markers in treatment breaks (3); support patient need for medicine optimisation (4); support primary care practitioner need regarding bisphosphonates (5); comparing zoledronate given in community vs hospital settings (6); ensuring quality standards are met (7); the long-term model of care (8); best bisphosphonate for people aged under 50 (9); and supporting patient decision-making about bisphosphonates (10). CONCLUSION: This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals. Using James Lind Alliance methodology, this study reports prioritised topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care.

Clinicians' views of prescribing oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. METHODS: This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. RESULTS: The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. CONCLUSION: Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Mosquito aquatic habitat modification and manipulation interventions to control malaria.

BACKGROUND: Larval source management (LSM) may help reduce Plasmodium parasite transmission in malaria-endemic areas. LSM approaches include habitat modification (permanently or temporarily reducing mosquito breeding aquatic habitats); habitat manipulation (temporary or recurrent change to environment); or use of chemical (e.g. larviciding) or biological agents (e.g. natural predators) to breeding sites. We examined the effectiveness of habitat modification or manipulation (or both), with and without larviciding. This is an update of a review published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe and summarize the interventions on mosquito aquatic habitat modification or mosquito aquatic habitat manipulation, or both, on malaria control. 2. To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of mosquito aquatic habitat modification or mosquito aquatic habitat manipulation, or both, on malaria control. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was from January 2012 to 30 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized intervention studies comparing mosquito aquatic habitat modification or manipulation (or both) to no treatment or another active intervention. We also included uncontrolled before-after (BA) studies, but only described and summarized the interventions from studies with these designs. Primary outcomes were clinical malaria incidence, malaria parasite prevalence, and malaria parasitaemia incidence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized intervention studies. We used a narrative synthesis approach to systematically describe and summarize all the interventions included within the review, categorized by the type of intervention (habitat modification, habitat manipulation, combination of habitat modification and manipulation). Our primary outcomes were 1. clinical malaria incidence; 2. malaria parasite prevalence; and 3. malaria parasitaemia incidence. Our secondary outcomes were 1. incidence of severe malaria; 2. anaemia prevalence; 3. mean haemoglobin levels; 4. mortality rate due to malaria; 5. hospital admissions for malaria; 6. density of immature mosquitoes; 7. density of adult mosquitoes; 8. sporozoite rate; 9. entomological inoculation rate; and 10. HARMS: We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each type of intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Six used an RCT design, six used a controlled before-after (CBA) study design, three used a non-randomized controlled design, and one used an uncontrolled BA study design. Eleven studies were conducted in Africa and five in Asia. Five studies reported epidemiological outcomes and 15 studies reported entomological outcomes. None of the included studies reported on the environmental impacts associated with the intervention. For risk of bias, all trials had some concerns and other designs ranging from moderate to critical. Ten studies assessed habitat manipulation (temporary change to the environment). This included water management (spillways across streams; floodgates; intermittent flooding; different drawdown rates of water; different flooding and draining regimens), shading management (shading of drainage channels with different plants), other/combined management approaches (minimal tillage; disturbance of aquatic habitats with grass clearing and water replenishment), which showed mixed results for entomological outcomes. Spillways across streams, faster drawdown rates of water, shading drainage canals with Napier grass, and using minimal tillage may reduce the density of immature mosquitoes (range of effects from 95% reduction to 1.7 times increase; low-certainty evidence), and spillways across streams may reduce densities of adult mosquitoes compared to no intervention (low-certainty evidence). However, the effect of habitat manipulation on malaria parasite prevalence and clinical malaria incidence is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed habitat manipulation with larviciding. This included reducing or removal of habitat sites; and drain cleaning, grass cutting, and minor repairs. It is uncertain whether drain cleaning, grass cutting, and minor repairs reduces malaria parasite prevalence compared to no intervention (odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.83; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed combination of habitat manipulation and permanent change (habitat modification). This included drainage canals, filling, and planting of papyrus and other reeds for shading near dams; and drainage of canals, removal of debris, land levelling, and filling ditches. Studies did not report on epidemiological outcomes, but entomological outcomes suggest that such activities may reduce the density of adult mosquitoes compared to no intervention (relative risk reduction 0.49, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.50; low-certainty evidence), and preventing water stagnating using drainage of canals, removal of debris, land levelling, and filling ditches may reduce the density of immature mosquitoes compared to no intervention (ranged from 10% to 55% reductions; low-certainty evidence). Three studies assessed combining manipulation and modification with larviciding. This included filling or drainage of water bodies; filling, draining, or elimination of rain pools and puddles at water supply points and stream bed pools; and shoreline work, improvement and maintenance to drainage, clearing vegetation and undergrowth, and filling pools. There were mixed effect sizes for the reduction of entomological outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). However, filling or draining water bodies probably makes little or no difference to malaria parasite prevalence, haemoglobin levels, or entomological inoculation rate when delivered with larviciding compared to no intervention (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Habitat modification and manipulation interventions for preventing malaria has some indication of benefit in both epidemiological and entomological outcomes. While the data are quite mixed and further studies could help improve the knowledge base, these varied approaches may be useful in some circumstances.

Pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours). MAIN RESULTS: We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I2 = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I2 = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I2 = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I2 = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I2 = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.

Strategies for screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care and other community settings.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolaemia is a common inherited condition that is associated with premature cardiovascular disease. The increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, resulting from high levels of cholesterol since birth, can be prevented by starting lipid-lowering therapy. However, the majority of patients in the UK and worldwide remain undiagnosed. Established diagnostic criteria in current clinical practice are the Simon-Broome and Dutch Lipid Clinical network criteria and patients are classified as having probable, possible or definite familial hypercholesterolaemia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of healthcare interventions strategies to systematically improve identification of familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care and other community settings compared to usual care (incidental approaches to identify familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care and other community settings). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of last search: 13 September 2021. We also searched databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) as well as handsearching relevant conference proceedings, reference lists of included articles, and the grey literature. Date of last searches: 05 March 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: As per the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group guidelines, we planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Eligible NRSI were non-randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted-time-series studies. We planned to selected studies with healthcare interventions strategies that aimed to systematically identify people with possible or definite clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia, in primary care and other community settings. These strategies would be compared with usual care or no intervention. We considered participants of any age from the general population who access primary care and other community settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors planned to independently select studies according to the inclusion criteria, to extract data and assess for risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence (according to the GRADE criteria). We contacted corresponding study authors in order to obtain further information for all the studies considered in the review. MAIN RESULTS: No eligible RCTs or NRSIs were identified for inclusion, however, we excluded 28 studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there are no RCTs or controlled NRSI evidence to determine the most appropriate healthcare strategy to systematically identify possible or definite clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary care or other community settings. Uncontrolled before-and-after studies were identified, but were not eligible for inclusion. Further studies assessing healthcare strategies of systematic identification of familial hypercholesterolaemia need to be conducted with diagnosis confirmed by genetic testing or validated through clinical phenotype (or both).

Understanding willingness to access and experiences of NHS Stop Smoking Services: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: NHS Stop Smoking Services (NHS-SSS) have been available in the United Kingdom (UK) since 2000. The service has proven to be effective, however uptake remains below aspirations. Understanding people's willingness and reasons for accessing and engaging with NHS-SSS is, therefore, important. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the findings from qualitative research to understand people's views, perceptions and willingness to access NHS-SSS. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched for published qualitative studies, from Jan 2000 to Jan 2020. Following the screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was conducted using meta-aggregation based on a patient-centred theoretical framework. We explored five 'demand-side' dimensions of service accessibility: the ability to perceive, seek, reach, pay and engage. Confidence in the synthesised findings relating to dependability and credibility was established using CONQual. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the review. Twelve categories emerged, contributing to five synthesised statements, all with a CONQual rating of moderate confidence. Access and willingness to use NHS-SSS were found to be related to an individual's readiness to perceive that smoking is a problem for which a solution should be sought, their ability to seek a perceived effective treatment, to conveniently reach NHS-SSS, their perceptions around associated costs and tailoring care to improve engagement with individuals. CONCLUSIONS: By using a theoretical framework incorporating healthcare access, this study provides policymakers valuable insights into people's willingness to access these services. Willingness to access NHS-SSS is multifaceted, nuanced and complex. Strategies to promote NHS-SSS uptake should include making services more attractive, relevant and responsive to individual perceptions around smoking and health. Given the higher prevalence of smoking in less affluent socioeconomic groups and in some ethnic minority groups, the importance of having a comprehensive and inclusive tobacco control policy, one that is linguistically and culturally sensitive, cannot be overstated.

Corticosteroids as Adjunctive Therapy in the Treatment of Influenza: An Updated Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Corticosteroids may be beneficial in sepsis, but uncertainty remains over their effects in severe influenza. This systematic review updates the current evidence regarding corticosteroids in the treatment of influenza and examines the effect of dose on outcome. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) and trial registries were searched to October 2018 for randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and observational cohort studies reporting corticosteroid versus no corticosteroid treatment in individuals with influenza. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (randomized controlled trials) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). Where appropriate, we estimated the effect of corticosteroids by random-effects meta-analyses using the generic inverse variance method. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the association of corticosteroid dose and mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 30 eligible studies, all observational apart from one randomized controlled trial. Twenty-one observational studies were included in the meta-analysis of mortality, which suggested an adverse association with corticosteroid therapy (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.31-6.60; 15 studies; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.02; six studies). Risk of bias assessment was consistent with potential confounding by indication. Pooled analysis of seven studies showed increased odds of hospital-acquired infection in people treated with corticosteroids (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.51-4.95). Meta-regression of the effect of dose on mortality did not reveal an association, but reported doses of corticosteroids in included studies were high (mostly > 40 mg methylprednisolone [or equivalent] per day). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid treatment in influenza is associated with increased mortality and hospital-acquired infection, but the evidence relates mainly to high corticosteroid doses and is of low quality with potential confounding by indication a major concern.

Using Trial Sequential Analysis for estimating the sample sizes of further trials: example using smoking cessation intervention.

BACKGROUND: Assessing benefits and harms of health interventions is resource-intensive and often requires feasibility and pilot trials followed by adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Data from feasibility and pilot trials are used to inform the design and sample size of the adequately powered randomised clinical trials. When a randomised clinical trial is conducted, results from feasibility and pilot trials may be disregarded in terms of benefits and harms. METHODS: We describe using feasibility and pilot trial data in the Trial Sequential Analysis software to estimate the required sample size for one or more trials investigating a behavioural smoking cessation intervention. We show how data from a new, planned trial can be combined with data from the earlier trials using trial sequential analysis methods to assess the intervention's effects. RESULTS: We provide a worked example to illustrate how we successfully used the Trial Sequential Analysis software to arrive at a sensible sample size for a new randomised clinical trial and use it in the argumentation for research funds for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Trial Sequential Analysis can utilise data from feasibility and pilot trials as well as other trials, to estimate a sample size for one or more, similarly designed, future randomised clinical trials. As this method uses available data, estimated sample sizes may be smaller than they would have been using conventional sample size estimation methods.

The Effects of Tobacco Smoking, and Prenatal Tobacco Smoke Exposure, on Risk of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The association between cigarette smoking and schizophrenia is well established. However, up to 90% of people with schizophrenia begin smoking before the onset of their illness; thus, smoking could be an independent risk factor for schizophrenia. Prenatal exposure to maternal cigarette smoke is also associated with psychiatric problems in adolescence. Therefore, our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effect of smoking, and prenatal smoke exposure, on risk of schizophrenia. METHOD: We systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Maternity and Infant Care, and Web of Science (from inception to February 2018) to identify comparative observational studies of the risk of schizophrenia in relation to smoking status. Measures of relative risk (RR) were pooled in a meta-analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using random effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies (9 cohort, 3 case-control) were included. Odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) were pooled together to estimate pooled relative risks and estimates combined in a meta-analysis on an assumption of constant risk over time. Smokers had a significantly increased risk of schizophrenia compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.10% to 3.61%, I2 = 97%, 5 studies). Exposure to prenatal smoke increased the risk of schizophrenia by 29% (95% CI = 1.10% to 1.51%, I2 = 71%, 7 studies). Sensitivity analyses identified no significant differences between the results from studies reporting OR and hazard ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest smoking, and prenatal smoke exposure, may be an independent risk factor for schizophrenia. Care should be taken when inferring causation, given the observational nature of the studies. IMPLICATIONS: In this meta-analysis of 12 studies, smokers had a significantly increased risk of schizophrenia compared with nonsmokers. Exposure to prenatal tobacco smoke also increased the risk of schizophrenia by 29% compared with those with no exposure to prenatal tobacco smoke. Our findings suggest that smoking, and prenatal tobacco smoke exposure, may be independent risk factors for schizophrenia. These results may have important public health implications for decreasing the incidence of schizophrenia. The possibility of a causal link between smoking and schizophrenia warrants further investigation.

Interest in and Use of Smoking Cessation Support Across Pregnancy and Postpartum.

BACKGROUND: Limited research exists on interest in and use of smoking cessation support in pregnancy and postpartum. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort of pregnant smokers and recent ex-smokers were recruited in Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom (N = 850). Data were collected at 8-26 weeks gestation, 34-36 weeks gestation, and 3 months postpartum and used as three cross-sectional surveys. Interest and use of cessation support and belief and behavior measures were collected at all waves. Key data were adjusted for nonresponse and analyzed descriptively, and multiple regression was used to identify associations. RESULTS: In early and late pregnancy, 44% (95% CI 40% to 48%) and 43% (95% CI 37% to 49%) of smokers, respectively, were interested in cessation support with 33% (95% CI 27% to 39%) interested postpartum. In early pregnancy, 43% of smokers reported discussing cessation with a midwife and, in late pregnancy, 27% did so. Over one-third (38%) did not report discussing quitting with a health professional during pregnancy. Twenty-seven percent of smokers reported using any National Health Service (NHS) cessation support and 12% accessed NHS Stop Smoking Services during pregnancy. Lower quitting confidence (self-efficacy), higher confidence in stopping with support, higher quitting motivation, and higher age were associated with higher interest in support (ps ≤ .001). A recent quit attempt and greater interest in support was associated with speaking to a health professional about quitting and use of NHS cessation support (ps ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: When asked in early or late pregnancy, about half of pregnant smokers were interested in cessation support, though most did not engage. Cessation support should be offered throughout pregnancy and after delivery. IMPLICATIONS: There is relatively high interest in cessation support in early and late pregnancy and postpartum among smokers; however, a much smaller proportion of pregnant or postpartum women access any cessation support, highlighting a gap between interest and engagement. Reflecting women's interest, offers of cessation support should be provided throughout pregnancy and after delivery. Increasing motivation to quit and confidence in quitting with assistance may enhance interest in support, and promoting the discussion of stopping smoking between women and health practitioners may contribute to higher support engagement rates.

Interventions for basal cell carcinoma of the skin.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the commonest cancer affecting white-skinned individuals, and worldwide incidence is increasing. Although rarely fatal, BCC is associated with significant morbidity and costs. First-line treatment is usually surgical excision, but alternatives are available. New published studies and the development of non-surgical treatments meant an update of our Cochrane Review (first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2007) was timely. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for BCC in immunocompetent adults. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to November 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for BCC in immunocompetent adults with histologically-proven, primary BCC. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, other treatments, or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were recurrence at three years and five years (measured clinically) (we included recurrence data outside of these time points if there was no measurement at three or five years) and participant- and observer-rated good/excellent cosmetic outcome. Secondary outcomes included pain during and after treatment, early treatment failure within six months, and adverse effects (AEs). We used GRADE to assess evidence certainty for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 RCTs (26 new) involving 6690 participants (median 89) in this update. All studies recruited from secondary care outpatient clinics. More males than females were included. Study duration ranged from six weeks to 10 years (average 13 months). Most studies (48/52) included only low-risk BCC (superficial (sBCC) and nodular (nBCC) histological subtypes). The majority of studies were at low or unclear risk of bias for most domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded: commercial sponsors conducted most of the studies assessing imiquimod, and just under half of the photodynamic therapy (PDT) studies. Overall, surgical interventions have the lowest recurrence rates. For high-risk facial BCC (high-risk histological subtype or located in the facial 'H-zone' or both), there may be slightly fewer recurrences with Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) compared to surgical excision (SE) at three years (1.9% versus 2.9%, respectively) (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 2.64; 1 study, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at five years (3.2% versus 5.2%, respectively) (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.04; 1 study, 259 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the 95% CI also includes the possibility of increased risk of recurrence and no difference between treatments. There may be little to no difference regarding improvement of cosmetic outcomes between MMS and SE, judged by participants and observers 18 months post-operatively (one study; low-certainty evidence); however, no raw data were available for this outcome. When comparing imiquimod and SE for nBCC or sBCC at low-risk sites, imiquimod probably results in more recurrences than SE at three years (16.4% versus 1.6%, respectively) (RR 10.30, 95% CI 3.22 to 32.94; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and five years (17.5% versus 2.3%, respectively) (RR 7.73, 95% CI 2.81 to 21.3; 1 study, 383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participant-rated good/excellent cosmetic outcomes (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; 1 study, 326 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, imiquimod may result in greater numbers of good/excellent cosmetic outcomes compared to SE when observer-rated (60.6% versus 35.6%, respectively) (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.15; 1 study, 344 participants; low-certainty evidence). Both cosmetic outcomes were measured at three years. Based on one study of 347 participants with high- and low-risk primary BCC of the face, radiotherapy may result in more recurrences compared to SE under frozen section margin control at three years (5.2% versus 0%, respectively) (RR 19.11, 95% CI 1.12 to 325.78; low-certainty evidence) and at four years (6.4% versus 0.6%, respectively) (RR 11.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 84.77; low-certainty evidence). Radiotherapy probably results in a smaller number of good participant- (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; 50.3% versus 66.1%, respectively) or observer-rated (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62; 28.9% versus 60.3%, respectively) good/excellent cosmetic outcomes compared to SE, when measured at four years, where dyspigmentation and telangiectasia can occur (both moderate-certainty evidence). Methyl-aminolevulinate (MAL)-PDT may result in more recurrences compared to SE at three years (36.4% versus 0%, respectively) (RR 26.47, 95% CI 1.63 to 429.92; 1 study; 68 participants with low-risk nBCC in the head and neck area; low-certainty evidence). There were no useable data for measurement at five years. MAL-PDT probably results in greater numbers of participant- (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.27; 97.3% versus 82.5%) or observer-rated (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.26; 87.1% versus 46.6%) good/excellent cosmetic outcomes at one year compared to SE (2 studies, 309 participants with low-risk nBCC and sBCC; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on moderate-certainty evidence (single low-risk sBCC), imiquimod probably results in fewer recurrences at three years compared to MAL-PDT (22.8% versus 51.6%, respectively) (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.62; 277 participants) and five years (28.6% versus 68.6%, respectively) (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.57; 228 participants). There is probably little to no difference in numbers of observer-rated good/excellent cosmetic outcomes at one year (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; 370 participants). Participant-rated cosmetic outcomes were not measured for this comparison. AEs with surgical interventions include wound infections, graft necrosis and post-operative bleeding. Local AEs such as itching, weeping, pain and redness occur frequently with non-surgical interventions. Treatment-related AEs resulting in study modification or withdrawal occurred with imiquimod and MAL-PDT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Surgical interventions have the lowest recurrence rates, and there may be slightly fewer recurrences with MMS over SE for high-risk facial primary BCC (low-certainty evidence). Non-surgical treatments, when used for low-risk BCC, are less effective than surgical treatments, but recurrence rates are acceptable and cosmetic outcomes are probably superior. Of the non-surgical treatments, imiquimod has the best evidence to support its efficacy. Overall, evidence certainty was low to moderate. Priorities for future research include core outcome measures and studies with longer-term follow-up.

Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking in pregnancy causes serious health problems for the developing fetus and mother. When used by non-pregnant smokers, pharmacotherapies (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, and varenicline) are effective for increasing smoking cessation, however their efficacy and safety in pregnancy remains unknown. Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are becoming widely used, but their efficacy and safety when used for smoking cessation in pregnancy are also unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and ECs used during pregnancy for smoking cessation in later pregnancy and after childbirth, and to determine adherence to smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and ECs for smoking cessation during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 May 2019), trial registers, and grey literature, and checked references of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women, comparing smoking cessation pharmacotherapy or EC use with either placebo or no pharmacotherapy/EC control. We excluded quasi-randomised, cross-over, and within-participant designs, and RCTs with additional intervention components not matched between trial arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. The primary efficacy outcome was smoking cessation in later pregnancy; safety was assessed by 11 outcomes (principally birth outcomes) that indicated neonatal and infant well-being. We also collated data on adherence to trial treatments. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of comparison. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials that enrolled a total of 2412 pregnant women who smoked at enrolment, nine trials of NRT and two trials of bupropion as adjuncts to behavioural support, with comparable behavioural support provided in the control arms. No trials investigated varenicline or ECs. We assessed four trials as at low risk of bias overall. The overall certainty of the evidence was low across outcomes and comparisons as assessed using GRADE, with reductions in confidence due to risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Compared to placebo and non-placebo (behavioural support only) controls, there was low-certainty evidence that NRT increased the likelihood of smoking abstinence in later pregnancy (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; I² = 34%, 9 studies, 2336 women). However, in subgroup analysis by comparator type, there was a subgroup difference between placebo-controlled and non-placebo controlled RCTs (test for subgroup differences P = 0.008). There was unclear evidence of an effect in placebo-controlled RCTs (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 2063 women), whereas non-placebo-controlled trials showed clearer evidence of a benefit (RR 8.55, 95% CI 2.05 to 35.71; I² = 0%, 3 studies, 273 women). An additional subgroup analysis in which studies were grouped by the type of NRT used found no difference in the effectiveness of NRT in those using patches or fast-acting NRT (test for subgroup differences P = 0.08). There was no evidence of a difference between NRT and control groups in rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, birthweight, low birthweight, admissions to neonatal intensive care, caesarean section, congenital abnormalities, or neonatal death. In one study infants born to women who had been randomised to NRT had higher rates of 'survival without developmental impairment' at two years of age compared to the placebo group. Non-serious adverse effects observed with NRT included headache, nausea, and local reactions (e.g. skin irritation from patches or foul taste from gum), but data could not be pooled. Adherence to NRT treatment regimens was generally low. We identified low-certainty evidence that there was no difference in smoking abstinence rates observed in later pregnancy in women using bupropion when compared to placebo control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.64; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 76 women). Evidence investigating the safety outcomes of bupropion use was sparse, but the existing evidence showed no difference between the bupropion and control group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NRT used for smoking cessation in pregnancy may increase smoking cessation rates in late pregnancy. However, this evidence is of low certainty, as the effect was not evident when potentially biased, non-placebo-controlled RCTs were excluded from the analysis. Future studies may therefore change this conclusion. We found no evidence that NRT has either positive or negative impacts on birth outcomes; however, the evidence for some of these outcomes was also judged to be of low certainty due to imprecision and inconsistency. We found no evidence that bupropion may be an effective aid for smoking cessation during pregnancy, and there was little evidence evaluating its safety in this population. Further research evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy and EC use for smoking cessation in pregnancy is needed, ideally from placebo-controlled RCTs that achieve higher adherence rates and that monitor infants' outcomes into childhood. Future RCTs of NRT should investigate higher doses than those tested in the studies included in this review.

Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza.

BACKGROUND: Specific treatments for influenza are limited to neuraminidase inhibitors and adamantanes. Corticosteroids show evidence of benefit in sepsis and related conditions, most likely due to their anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties. Although commonly prescribed for severe influenza, there is uncertainty over their potential benefits or harms. This is an update of a review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza, taking into account differences in timing and doses of corticosteroids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 9), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 1, 2018), Embase (1980 to 3 October 2018), CINAHL (1981 to 3 October 2018), LILACS (1982 to 3 October 2018), Web of Science (1985 to 3 October 2018), abstracts from the last three years of major infectious disease and microbiology conferences, and references of included articles. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry on 3 October 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and observational studies that compared corticosteroid treatment with no corticosteroid treatment for influenza or influenza-like illness. We did not restrict studies by language of publication, influenza subtypes, clinical setting, or age of participants. We selected eligible studies in two stages: sequential examination of title and abstract, followed by full text. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled estimates of effect using a random-effects model, where appropriate. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 30 studies (one RCT with two arms and 29 observational studies) with a total of 99,224 participants. We included 19 studies in the original review (n = 3459), all of which were observational, with 13 studies included in the meta-analysis for mortality. We included 12 new studies in this update (one RCT and 11 observational studies), and excluded one study in the original review as it has been superceded by a more recent analysis. Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis (9536 individuals), of which 15 studied people infected with 2009 influenza A H1N1 virus (H1N1pdm09). Data specific to mortality were of very low quality, based predominantly on observational studies, with inconsistent reporting of variables potentially associated with the outcomes of interest, differences between studies in the way in which they were conducted, and with the likelihood of potential confounding by indication. Reported doses of corticosteroids used were high, and indications for their use were not well reported. On meta-analysis, corticosteroid therapy was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio (OR) 3.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31 to 6.60; I2 = 68%; 15 studies). A similar increase in risk of mortality was seen in a stratified analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.24; I2 = 0%; 5 studies). An association between corticosteroid therapy and increased mortality was also seen on pooled analysis of six studies which reported adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.02; I2 = 69%). Increased odds of hospital-acquired infection related to corticosteroid therapy were found on pooled analysis of seven studies (pooled OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.95; I2 = 90%); all were unadjusted estimates, and we graded the data as of very low certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found one RCT of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy for treating people with community-acquired pneumonia, but the number of people with laboratory-confirmed influenza in the treatment and placebo arms was too small to draw conclusions regarding the effect of corticosteroids in this group, and we did not include it in our meta-analyses of observational studies. The certainty of the available evidence from observational studies was very low, with confounding by indication a major potential concern. Although we found that adjunctive corticosteroid therapy is associated with increased mortality, this result should be interpreted with caution. In the context of clinical trials of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy in sepsis and pneumonia that report improved outcomes, including decreased mortality, more high-quality research is needed (both RCTs and observational studies that adjust for confounding by indication). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids for people with influenza.

Diet during pregnancy and infancy and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the influence of diet during pregnancy and infancy on a child's immune development. We assessed whether variations in maternal or infant diet can influence risk of allergic or autoimmune disease. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Two authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of findings. We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Web of Science, Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) between January 1946 and July 2013 for observational studies and until December 2017 for intervention studies that evaluated the relationship between diet during pregnancy, lactation, or the first year of life and future risk of allergic or autoimmune disease. We identified 260 original studies (964,143 participants) of milk feeding, including 1 intervention trial of breastfeeding promotion, and 173 original studies (542,672 participants) of other maternal or infant dietary exposures, including 80 trials of maternal (n = 26), infant (n = 32), or combined (n = 22) interventions. Risk of bias was high in 125 (48%) milk feeding studies and 44 (25%) studies of other dietary exposures. Evidence from 19 intervention trials suggests that oral supplementation with nonpathogenic micro-organisms (probiotics) during late pregnancy and lactation may reduce risk of eczema (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.90; I2 = 61%; Absolute Risk Reduction 44 cases per 1,000; 95% CI 20-64), and 6 trials suggest that fish oil supplementation during pregnancy and lactation may reduce risk of allergic sensitisation to egg (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53-0.90; I2 = 15%; Absolute Risk Reduction 31 cases per 1,000; 95% CI 10-47). GRADE certainty of these findings was moderate. We found weaker support for the hypotheses that breastfeeding promotion reduces risk of eczema during infancy (1 intervention trial), that longer exclusive breastfeeding is associated with reduced type 1 diabetes mellitus (28 observational studies), and that probiotics reduce risk of allergic sensitisation to cow's milk (9 intervention trials), where GRADE certainty of findings was low. We did not find that other dietary exposures-including prebiotic supplements, maternal allergenic food avoidance, and vitamin, mineral, fruit, and vegetable intake-influence risk of allergic or autoimmune disease. For many dietary exposures, data were inconclusive or inconsistent, such that we were unable to exclude the possibility of important beneficial or harmful effects. In this comprehensive systematic review, we were not able to include more recent observational studies or verify data via direct contact with authors, and we did not evaluate measures of food diversity during infancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support a relationship between maternal diet and risk of immune-mediated diseases in the child. Maternal probiotic and fish oil supplementation may reduce risk of eczema and allergic sensitisation to food, respectively.

Linkage of national soil quality measurements to primary care medical records in England and Wales: a new resource for investigating environmental impacts on human health.

BACKGROUND: Long-term, low-level exposure to toxic elements in soil may be harmful to human health but large longitudinal cohort studies with sufficient follow-up time to study these effects are cost-prohibitive and impractical. Linkage of routinely collected medical outcome data to systematic surveys of soil quality may offer a viable alternative. METHODS: We used the Geochemical Baseline Survey of the Environment (G-BASE), a systematic X-ray fluorescence survey of soil inorganic chemistry throughout England and Wales to obtain estimates of the concentrations of 15 elements in the soil contained within each English and Welsh postcode area. We linked these data to the residential postcodes of individuals enrolled in The Health Improvement Network (THIN), a large database of UK primary care medical records, to provide estimates of exposure. Observed exposure levels among the THIN population were compared with expectations based on UK population estimates to assess representativeness. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-seven of three hundred ninety-five English and Welsh THIN practices agreed to participate in the linkage, providing complete residential soil metal estimates for 6,243,363 individuals (92% of all current and former patients) with a mean period of prospective computerised medical data collection (follow-up) of 6.75 years. Overall agreement between the THIN population and expectations was excellent; however, the number of participating practices in the Yorkshire & Humber strategic health authority was low, leading to restricted ranges of measurements for some elements relative to the known variations in geochemical concentrations in this area. CONCLUSIONS: The linked database provides unprecedented population size and statistical power to study the effects of elements in soil on human health. With appropriate adjustment, results should be generalizable to and representative of the wider English and Welsh population.

Pre-emptive and preventive opioids for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have deleterious effects. It has been suggested that the administration of opioid analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. This can be done in two ways. We defined 'preventive opioids' as opioids administered before incision and continued postoperatively, and 'pre-emptive opioids' as opioids given before incision but not continued postoperatively. Both pre-emptive and preventive analgesia involve the initiation of an analgesic agent prior to surgical incision with the aim of reducing intraoperative nociception and therefore postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive opioids for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL (up to 18 March 2018). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included participants aged over 15 years old undergoing any type of surgery. We defined postincision opioids as the same intervention administered after incision whether single dose (as comparator with pre-emptive analgesia) or continued postoperatively (as comparator with preventive analgesia) (control group). We considered studies that did and did not use a double-dummy placebo (e.g. intervention group received active drug before incision and placebo after incision; control group received placebo before incision and active drug after incision). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: early acute postoperative pain (measured within six hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale) and respiratory depression. Our secondary outcomes included: late acute postoperative pain (24 to 48 hours and reported on a 0-to-10 scale), 24-hour morphine consumption, and adverse events (intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, including one unpublished study with 1343 participants. Two studies were awaiting classification as the full text for these studies was not available. One study evaluated pre-emptive opioids, and 19 studies evaluated preventive opioids. We considered only one study to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The surgeries and opioids used varied, although roughly half of the included studies were conducted in abdominal hysterectomy, and around a quarter used morphine as the intervention. All studies were conducted in secondary care.Pre-emptive opioids compared to postincision opioidsFor pre-emptive opioids in dental surgery, there may be a reduction in early acute postoperative pain (mean difference (MD) -1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.75 to -0.65; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report on adverse events (respiratory depression, bradycardia, or hypotension). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -2.10, 95% CI -2.57 to -1.63; 40 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). This study did not report 24-hour morphine consumption.Preventive opioids compared to postincision opioidsFor preventive opioids, there was probably no reduction in early acute postoperative pain (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.53; 706 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 61%; moderate-quality evidence). There were no events of respiratory depression in four studies (433 participants). There was no important reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 668 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be a small reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -4.91 mg, 95% CI -9.39 mg to -0.44 mg; 526 participants; 11 studies; I2 = 82%; very low-quality evidence). There may be similar rates of bradycardia (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; 112 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.73; 88 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether pre-emptive opioids reduce postoperative pain. Based on the trials conducted thus far, there was no clear evidence that preventive opioids result in reductions in pain scores. It was unclear if there was a reduction in morphine consumption due to very low-quality of evidence. Too few studies reported adverse events to be able to draw any definitive conclusions. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review.