Search

Today, keeping up with the fast evolving evidence is more challenging than ever for practising physicians. A huge number of studies are published every day, and it is no longer possible to read all the relevant individual studies. Many physicians prefer attending continuing medical education (CME) to reading international scientific publications. Consequently, it is critical that CME is based on the best available evidence and presented in an unbiased manner free of conflicts of interest. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews in particular can thus provide a valuable resource of up-to-date and high-quality information on health care questions for CME providers. Of note, systematic reviews might become outdated quickly. Furthermore, some systematic reviews are fraught with limitations such as poor methodology and conduct or incomplete and misleading reporting. This article provides a brief overview of systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews, outlines how systematic reviews can be "kept alive" using today's digital opportunities and points to several common problems of systematic reviews with suggestions for solutions., Competing Interests: All authors are working at Cochrane Germany. JJM is director of Cochrane Germany and author of several Cochrane reviews. This article does not necessarily reflect the views of the Cochrane Collaboration., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Background: Although antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy in frail older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is challenging, recommendations from international guidelines are mainly based on indirect evidence from trials not including frail participants., Objective: This systematic review investigated the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy in frail older adults with T2DM., Material and Methods: Randomized (RCT) and non-randomized prospective clinical trials (non-RCT) were searched in three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Central) up to October 2018. Trials in older adults with T2DM who were assessed as significantly or severely impaired by defined cut-off scores of assessment instruments on frailty, activities of daily living or physical functional impairment were included., Results: Two reviewers independently screened 17,391 references for inclusion and assessed risk of bias with ROBINS‑I. Five non-RCTs and no RCT were identified. Treatment of T2DM without insulin compared to insulin could be associated with increased improvement in cardiac functions in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy and with decreased falls in frail older women. While better glycemic control with low variability and low HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c) values (<7%) was associated with better maintenance of physical function in community-dwelling older persons, higher HbA1c values (8-8.9%) were associated with a reduction in the composite outcome of death or functional decline in community-dwelling diabetic older adults with need for skilled assistance. Due to serious risk of bias in all studies, results should be considered with caution., Conclusion: Well-designed, large-scale RCTs including this important group of patients are required to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and HbA1c targets.

Background: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance., Objectives: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly., Search Methods: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events., Main Results: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I 2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I 2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I 2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I 2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I 2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I 2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com)., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited autosomal recessive disorder caused by the replacement of normal haemoglobin (HbA) by mutant Hb (sickle Hb, HbS). The sickle-shaped red blood cells lead to haemolysis and vaso-occlusion. Especially in the first years of life, patients with SCD are at high risk of life-threatening complications. SCD prevalence shows large regional variations; the disease predominantly occurs in sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to systematically assess the evidence on the benefit of newborn screening for SCD followed by an earlier treatment start., Methods: We systematically searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases, and the Health Technology Assessment Database), trial registries, and other sources to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised trials on newborn screening for SCD. The last search was in 07/2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and assessed the risk of bias of the studies included. Data were extracted by one person and checked by another. As meta-analyses were not possible, a qualitative summary of results was performed., Results: We identified 1 eligible study with direct evidence: a Jamaican retrospective study evaluating newborn screening for SCD followed by preventive measures (prevention of infections and education of parents). The study included 500 patients with SCD (intervention group, 395; historical control group, 105). Although the results showed a high risk of bias, the difference between the intervention and the control group was very large: mortality in children decreased by a factor of about 10 in the first 5 years of life (0.02% in the intervention group vs. 0.19% in the control group, odds ratio 0.09; 95% confidence interval [0.04; 0.22], p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The results are based on a single retrospective study including historical controls. However, the decrease of mortality by a factor of 10 is unlikely to be explained by bias alone. Therefore, in terms of mortality, data from this single retrospective study included in our systematic review suggest a benefit of newborn screening for SCD (followed by preventive measures) versus no newborn screening for SCD (weak certainty of conclusions).

When treating older adults, a main factor to consider is physical frailty. Because specific assessments in clinical trials are frequently lacking, critical appraisal of treatment evidence with respect to functional status is challenging. Our aim was to identify and categorize assessments for functional status given in clinical trials in older adults to allow for a retrospective characterization and indirect comparison of treatment evidence from these cohorts. We conducted 4 separate systematic reviews of randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials in older people with hypertension, diabetes, depression, and dementia. All assessments identified that reflected functional status were analyzed. Assessments were categorized across 4 different functional status levels. These levels span from functionally not impaired, slightly impaired, significantly impaired, to severely impaired/disabled. If available from the literature, cut-offs for these 4 functioning levels were extracted. If not, or if the existing cut-offs did not match the predefined functional levels, cut-off points were defined by an expert group composed of geriatricians, pharmacists, pharmacologists, neurologists, psychiatrists, and epidemiologists using a patient-centered approach. We identified 51 instruments that included measures of functional status. Although some of the assessments had clearly defined cut-offs across our predefined categories, many others did not. In most cases, no cut-offs existed for slightly impaired or severely impaired older adults. Missing cut-offs or values to adjust were determined by the expert group and are presented as described. The functional status assessments that were identified and operationalized across 4 functional levels could now be used for a retrospective characterization of functional status in randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Allocated categories only serve as approximations and should be validated head-to-head in future studies. Moreover, as general standard, upcoming studies involving older adults should include and explicitly report functional impairment as a baseline characteristic of all participants enrolled., (Copyright © 2018 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is debated whether the treatment goals and decision-making algorithms for elderly patients with hypertension should be the same as those for younger patients. The American and European guidelines leave decisions about antihypertensive treatment in frail, institutionalized patients up to the treating physician. We therefore systematically searched the literature for publications on the phamacotherapy of arterial hypertension in frail patients., Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Central databases were systematically searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies, including observational studies, on the pharmacotherapy of arterial hypertension in elderly patients since the introduction of the concept of frailty, published over the period 1992-2017., Results: Out of 19 282 citations for randomized, controlled trials and 5659 for non-randomized trials and observational studies, four RCTs and three observational studies were included in the further analysis. The included RCTs showed a trend to- wards a benefit from pharmacotherapy of hypertension in frail patients with respect to mortality, cardiovascular disease, functional status, and quality of life. On the other hand, some of the observational studies indicated a lower rate of falls and lower mortality among patients who received no antihypertensive treatment., Conclusion: In view of the conflicting findings of RCTs and non-randomized studies, the lower representation of frail subjects in RCTs, and the high risk of bias in non- randomized studies, the findings of the studies included in this review do not enable the formulation of any strictly evidence-based treatment recommendations. As a rule of thumb, the authors propose that a target systolic blood pressure of <150 mmHg should be aimed at in patients whose gait speed is less than 0.8 m/s, while a target range of 130-139 mmHg can be set for patients over age 80 who are no more than mildly frail.

Introduction: The number of clinical trials investigating the optimal timing of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section has increased rapidly over the last few years. We conducted a systematic review to inform up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to prevent postpartum infectious morbidity in the mother and rule out any safety issues related to antepartum antibiotic exposure in infants., Material and Methods: Four bibliographic databases were searched for published reports of trials. Ongoing or unpublished studies were searched in Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization registry platform. Randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis before and after cord clamping in cesarean section were eligible. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed, and certainty of evidence graded., Results: In total, 18 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Those women who received antibiotics preoperatively were 28% (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.92, nine studies, 4342 women, high quality of evidence) less likely to show infectious morbidity as compared with those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. The risk of endomyometritis and/or endometritis was reduced by 43% (relative risk 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.82, 13 studies, 6250 women, high quality of evidence) and the risk of wound infection by 38% (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.81, 14 studies, 6450 women, high quality of evidence) in those who received antibiotics preoperatively as compared to those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. For other maternal infections no significant differences were identified. The risk for neonatal outcomes, such as deaths attributed to infection, sepsis, neonatal antibiotic treatment, intensive care unit admission or antibiotic-related adverse events, was not found to be different, either clinically or statistically, when antibiotics were given before or after cord clamping (moderate to low quality of evidence)., Conclusions: The evidence in favor of prophylactic antibiotic administration before, in comparison with after, cord clamping for major maternal infections was of high quality, meaning that further research would be unlikely to change the confidence in these findings. However, we recommend additional research reflecting the precision of the effect estimates for neonatal outcomes., (© 2017 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: Thalassaemia is a hereditary anaemia due to ineffective erythropoiesis. In particular, people with thalassaemia major develop secondary iron overload resulting from regular red blood cell transfusions. Iron chelation therapy is needed to prevent long-term complications.Both deferoxamine and deferiprone are effective; however, a review of the effectiveness and safety of the newer oral chelator deferasirox in people with thalassaemia is needed., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral deferasirox in people with thalassaemia and iron overload., Search Methods: We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 August 2016.We also searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Biosis Previews, Web of Science Core Collection and three trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register: 06 and 07 August 2015., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled studies comparing deferasirox with no therapy or placebo or with another iron-chelating treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information., Main Results: Sixteen studies involving 1807 randomised participants (range 23 to 586 participants) were included. Twelve two-arm studies compared deferasirox to placebo (two studies) or deferoxamine (seven studies) or deferiprone (one study) or the combination of deferasirox and deferoxamine to deferoxamine alone (one study). One study compared the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone in combination with deferoxamine. Three three-arm studies compared deferasirox to deferoxamine and deferiprone (two studies) or the combination of deferasirox and deferiprone to deferiprone and deferasirox monotherapy respectively (one study). One four-arm study compared two different doses of deferasirox to matching placebo groups.The two studies (a pharmacokinetic and a dose-escalation study) comparing deferasirox to placebo (n = 47) in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia showed that deferasirox leads to net iron excretion. In these studies, safety was acceptable and further investigation in phase II and phase III studies was warranted.Nine studies (1251 participants) provided data for deferasirox versus standard treatment with deferoxamine. Data suggest that a similar efficacy can be achieved depending on the ratio of doses of deferoxamine and deferasirox being compared. In the phase III study, similar or superior efficacy for the intermediate markers ferritin and liver iron concentration (LIC) could only be achieved in the highly iron-overloaded subgroup at a mean ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 1.8 mg of deferoxamine corresponding to a mean dose of 28.2 mg per day and 51.6 mg per day respectively. The pooled effects across the different dosing ratios are: serum ferritin, mean difference (MD) 454.42 ng/mL (95% confidence interval (CI) 337.13 to 571.71) (moderate quality evidence); LIC evaluated by biopsy or SQUID, MD 2.37 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI 1.68 to 3.07) (moderate quality evidence) and responder analysis, LIC 1 to < 7 mg Fe/g dry weight, risk ratio (RR) 0.80 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.92) (moderate quality evidence). The substantial heterogeneity observed could be explained by the different dosing ratios. Data on mortality (low quality evidence) and on safety at the presumably required doses for effective chelation therapy are limited. Patient satisfaction was better with deferasirox among those who had previously received deferoxamine treatment, RR 2.20 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.57) (moderate quality evidence). The rate of discontinuations was similar for both drugs (low quality evidence).For the remaining comparisons in people with transfusion-dependent thalassaemia, the quality of the evidence for outcomes assessed was low to very low, mainly due to the very small number of participants included. Four studies (205 participants) compared deferasirox to deferiprone; one of which (41 participants) revealed a higher number of participants experiencing arthralgia in the deferiprone group, but due to the large number of different types of adverse events reported and compared this result is uncertain. One study (96 participants) compared deferasirox combined with deferiprone to deferiprone with deferoxamine. Participants treated with the combination of the oral iron chelators had a higher adherence compared to those treated with deferiprone and deferoxamine, but no participants discontinued the study. In the comparisons of deferasirox versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone and that of deferiprone versus combined deferasirox and deferiprone (one study, 40 participants), and deferasirox and deferoxamine versus deferoxamine alone (one study, 94 participants), only a few patient-relevant outcomes were reported and no significant differences were observed.One study (166 participants) included people with non-transfusion dependent thalassaemia and compared two different doses of deferasirox to placebo. Deferasirox treatment reduced serum ferritin, MD -306.74 ng/mL (95% CI -398.23 to -215.24) (moderate quality evidence) and LIC, MD -3.27 mg Fe/g dry weight (95% CI -4.44 to -2.09) (moderate quality evidence), while the number of participants experiencing adverse events and rate of discontinuations (low quality evidence) was similar in both groups. No participant died, but data on mortality were limited due to a follow-up period of only one year (moderate quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Deferasirox offers an important treatment option for people with thalassaemia and secondary iron overload. Based on the available data, deferasirox does not seem to be superior to deferoxamine at the usually recommended ratio of 1 mg of deferasirox to 2 mg of deferoxamine. However, similar efficacy seems to be achievable depending on the dose and ratio of deferasirox compared to deferoxamine. Whether this will result in similar efficacy and will translate to similar benefits in the long term, as has been shown for deferoxamine, needs to be confirmed. Data from randomised controlled trials on rare toxicities and long-term safety are still limited. However, after a detailed discussion of the potential benefits and risks, deferasirox could be offered as the first-line option to individuals who show a strong preference for deferasirox, and may be a reasonable treatment option for people showing an intolerance or poor adherence to deferoxamine.

Background: There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development., Methods: In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives., Results: We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences., Conclusions: Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings.

Background: Guideline developers can: (1) adopt existing recommendations from others; (2) adapt existing recommendations to their own context; or (3) create recommendations de novo. Monetary and nonmonetary resources, credibility, maximization of uptake, as well as logical arguments should guide the choice of the approach and processes., Objectives: To describe a potentially efficient model for guideline production based on adoption, adaptation, and/or de novo development of recommendations utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks., Study Design and Setting: We applied the model in a new national guideline program producing 22 practice guidelines. We searched for relevant evidence that informs the direction and strength of a recommendation. We then produced GRADE EtDs for guideline panels to develop recommendations., Results: We produced a total of 80 EtD frameworks in approximately 4 months and 146 EtDs in approximately 6 months in two waves. Use of the EtD frameworks allowed panel members understand judgments of others about the criteria that bear on guideline recommendations and then make their own judgments about those criteria in a systematic approach., Conclusion: The "GRADE-ADOLOPMENT" approach to guideline production combines adoption, adaptation, and, as needed, de novo development of recommendations. If developers of guidelines follow EtD criteria more widely and make their work publically available, this approach should prove even more useful., (Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)