Search

Background: Treatment with opioids is a mainstay in perioperative pain management. While the leading treatment paradigm has been procedure-specific pain management, efforts regarding personalized pain treatment are increasing. The OPI•AID project aims to develop personalized algorithms for perioperative pain management, taking demographic, surgical, and anaesthesiologic factors into account. We will undertake five parallel reviews to illuminate current evidence on different aspects of individual responses to perioperative opioid treatment., Methods: Inclusion of adult populations in English-written studies. Review-specific searches are developed for the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and clinicaltrial.eu. Two authors will independently screen citations, extract data, and assess the risks of bias in each review (QUIPS, PROBAST and RoB2, as relevant)., Conclusion: These reviews will evaluate various aspects of perioperative opioid treatment, including individualized treatment strategies, selection of specific opioids, and individual patient responses. These will guide future development of a personalized perioperative opioid treatment algorithm (OPI•AID) that will be validated and tested clinically against standard of care., (© 2024 The Author(s). Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Managing postoperative pain while minimizing opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) remains a significant challenge. The OPI•AID Zone Tool is proposed as a novel clinical decision support tool that - both graphically and in a scoring-system - represents the relationship between pain management and the occurrence of ORADEs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes in postoperative care. The OPI•AID Zone Tool places pain score on the x-axis and an ORADE score on the y-axis, and stratifies patients into five zones to reflect the composite impact of pain severity and ORADEs on the quality of postoperative patient care. The study will have two key aims: (1) to explore whether the OPI•AID Zone Tool can function as a composite outcome measure for postoperative pain and ORADEs, and (2) to evaluate the use of the OPI•AID Zone Tool in visual presentations and for evaluation of patients' postoperative pain management quality., Methods: This prospective observational cohort study will include 200 adults undergoing various surgical procedures in general anesthesia with a subsequent stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) at Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. Substudy 1 primary outcome: To assess whether a zone score in the OPI•AID Zone Tool is associated with patient-perceived health (EQ VAS), quality of recovery (QoR-PACU), and time to discharge readiness in PACU, and if the zone score has a stronger association than pain and ORADE score in themselves. Substudy 2 primary outcome: To assess how the use of intraoperative non-opioid analgesics impact where patients are placed in the OPI•AID Zone Tool's XY scatterplot right after surgery. To assess if patients who receive more comprehensive non-opioid analgesic basic regimens, generally fall into lower zones., Conclusion: The OPI•AID Zone Tool could potentially be a valuable clinical decision-making tool for optimizing postoperative care by simultaneously addressing pain management and the risk of ORADEs. By computing a composite measure of these two critical outcomes, the tool could guide more nuanced and patient-centered analgesic regimens, potentially improving patient satisfaction and operational efficiency in postoperative settings. The tool's applicability will be explored in this observational pilot and followed up in a planned series of studies (opiaid.dk)., (© 2024 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly recommended for perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic treatments. Concerns regarding the potential for serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with perioperative NSAID treatment are especially relevant following gastrointestinal surgery. We assessed the risks of SAEs with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the harmful effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome was an incidence of SAEs. We systematically searched for eligible trials in five major databases up to January 2024. We performed risk of bias assessments to account for systematic errors, trial sequential analysis (TSA) to account for the risks of random errors, performed meta-analyses using R and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to describe the certainty of evidence., Results: We included 22 trials enrolling 1622 patients for our primary analyses. Most trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses (risk ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19; I 2  = 4%; p = .24; very low certainty of evidence) and TSA indicated a lack of information on the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo on the risks of SAEs. Post-hoc beta-binomial regression sensitivity analyses including trials with zero events showed a reduction in SAEs with NSAIDs versus placebo (odds ratio 0.73; CI 0.54-0.99; p = .042)., Conclusion: In adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the effects of NSAIDs on SAEs. The certainty of the evidence was very low., (© 2024 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Competing Interests: JM and MAH are collaborating investigators on the NHMRC- and MRFF-funded RELEASE and RELEASE + trials in Australia investigating hyperbolic tapering of antidepressants. MAH is a co-founder of Outro Health, a digital clinic which aims to help people who wish to stop no longer needed antidepressant medication in the US. MAH has received honoraria for lectures on deprescribing from NHS Trusts, Washington University and the University of Arizona. JM is a co-investigator on a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) funded study exploring methods of antidepressant discontinuation (REDUCE) and the Chief Investigator on the RADAR trial of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation funded by the NIHR. She collects royalties from three books on psychiatric drugs. ZS is a board member of the Canadian mood and anxiety disorders treatment guidelines. LM receives consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, and WHO. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Purpose: Application of standardised and automated assessments of head computed tomography (CT) for neuroprognostication after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: Prospective, international, multicentre, observational study within the Targeted Hypothermia versus Targeted Normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (TTM2) trial. Routine CTs from adult unconscious patients obtained > 48 h ≤ 7 days post-arrest were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by seven international raters blinded to clinical information using a pre-published protocol. Grey-white-matter ratio (GWR) was calculated from four (GWR-4) and eight (GWR-8) regions of interest manually placed at the basal ganglia level. Additionally, GWR was obtained using an automated atlas-based approach. Prognostic accuracies for prediction of poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 4-6) for the qualitative assessment and for the pre-defined GWR cutoff < 1.10 were calculated., Results: 140 unconscious patients were included; median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR] 59-76), 76% were male, and 75% had poor outcome. Standardised qualitative assessment and all GWR models predicted poor outcome with 100% specificity (95% confidence interval [CI] 90-100). Sensitivity in median was 37% for the standardised qualitative assessment, 39% for GWR-8, 30% for GWR-4 and 41% for automated GWR. GWR-8 was superior to GWR-4 regarding prognostic accuracies, intra- and interrater agreement. Overall prognostic accuracy for automated GWR (area under the curve [AUC] 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91) did not significantly differ from manually obtained GWR., Conclusion: Standardised qualitative and quantitative assessments of CT are reliable and feasible methods to predict poor functional outcome after cardiac arrest. Automated GWR has the potential to make CT quantification for neuroprognostication accessible to all centres treating cardiac arrest patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Acute heart failure is a public health concern. This study systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate vasodilators in acute heart failure., Methods: The search was conducted across the databases of Medline, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria consisted of RCTs that compared vasodilators versus standard care, placebo, or cointerventions. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (SAEs), tracheal intubation, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed in all trials., Results: The study included 46 RCTs that enrolled 28,374 patients with acute heart failure. Vasodilators did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.04; I 2 =9.51%; P=0.26). No evidence of a difference was seen in the risk of SAEs (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; I 2 =0.94%) or length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.08; I 2 =69.84%). Vasodilator use was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99; I 2 =51.96%) compared with no receipt of vasodilators., Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis of patients with acute heart failure, vasodilators did not reduce all-cause mortality.

Background/purpose: Non-resuscitation fluids constitute the majority of fluid administered for septic shock patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). This multicentre, randomized, feasibility trial was conducted to test the hypothesis that a restrictive protocol targeting non-resuscitation fluids reduces the overall volume administered compared with usual care., Methods: Adults with septic shock in six Swedish ICUs were randomized within 12 h of ICU admission to receive either protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids or usual care. The primary outcome was the total volume of fluid administered within three days of inclusion., Results: Median (IQR) total volume of fluid in the first three days, was 6008 ml (interquartile range [IQR] 3960-8123) in the restrictive fluid group (n = 44), and 9765 ml (IQR 6804-12,401) in the control group (n = 48); corresponding to a Hodges-Lehmann median difference of 3560 ml [95% confidence interval 1614-5302]; p < 0.001). Outcome data on all-cause mortality, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation and acute kidney injury or ischemic events in the ICU within 90 days of inclusion were recorded in 98/98 (100%), 95/98 (98%) and 95/98 (98%) of participants respectively. Cognition and health-related quality of life at six months were recorded in 39/52 (75%) and 41/52 (79%) of surviving participants, respectively. Ninety out of 134 patients (67%) of eligible patients were randomized, and 15/98 (15%) of the participants experienced at least one protocol violation., Conclusion: Protocolized reduction of non-resuscitation fluids in patients with septic shock resulted in a large decrease in fluid administration compared with usual care. A trial using this design to test if reducing non-resuscitation fluids improves outcomes is feasible., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05249088, 18 February 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05249088., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression., Results: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events., Conclusions: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption., (© 2024 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

The DEXamethasone twice for pain treatment after Total Knee Arthroplasty (DEX-2-TKA) trial showed that adding one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone to paracetamol, ibuprofen and local infiltration analgesia, reduced morphine consumption (primary outcome) within 48 h after TKA. We aimed to explore the differences in the effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in different subgroups. Quantile regression adjusted for site was used to test for significant interaction between the predefined dichotomised subgroups and treatment group. The subgroups were defined based on baseline data: sex (male/female), age (≤65 years/>65 years), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA)-score (ASA I + II/III), visual analogue score of preoperative pain at rest (≤30 mm/>30 mm), pain during mobilisation (≤30 mm/>30 mm), type of anaesthesia (spinal anaesthesia/general anaesthesia and spinal converted to general anaesthesia), and prior daily use of analgesics (either paracetamol and/or NSAID/neither). These analyses were supplemented with post hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. Test of interaction comparing sex in the pairwise comparison between DX2 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + dexamethasone [24 mg]) versus placebo (p = .02), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in male patients compared to females. Test of interaction comparing age in the pairwise comparison between DX1 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + placebo) versus placebo (p = .04), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in younger patients (≤65 years) compared to older. All remaining subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference. The supplemental multivariate analyses did not support any significant interaction for sex (p = .256) or age (p = .730) but supported a significant interaction with the type of anaesthesia (p < .001). Our results from the quantile regression analyses indicate that the male sex and younger age (≤65 years) may be associated with a larger analgesic effect of dexamethasone than the effects in other types of patients. However, this is not supported by post-hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. The two types of analyses both supported a possible interaction with the type of anaesthesia., (© 2024 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Multimodal postoperative analgesia following total hip arthroplasty is recommended, but the optimal combination of drugs remains uncertain. The aim of the RECIPE trial was to investigate the relative benefit and harm of the different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and the analgesic adjuvant dexamethasone for treatment of postoperative pain following total hip arthroplasty., Methods: The RECIPE trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at nine Danish hospitals. Adults scheduled for total hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computer-generated list with stratification by site to receive combinations of oral paracetamol 1000 mg every 6 h, oral ibuprofen 400 mg every 6 h, or a single-dose of intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg in the following groups: paracetamol plus ibuprofen, ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. The primary outcome was 24 h intravenous morphine consumption, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned participants who underwent total hip arthroplasty. The predefined minimal important difference was 8 mg. Safety outcomes included serious and non-serious adverse events within 90 days and 24 h. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04123873., Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and Nov 15, 2022, we randomly assigned 1060 participants, of whom 1043 (589 [56%] women and 454 [44%] men) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 261 were assigned to paracetamol plus ibuprofen, 262 to ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, 262 to paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and 258 to paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. Median 24 h morphine consumption was 24 mg (IQR 12-38) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group, 20 mg (12-32) in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, 16 mg (10-30) in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, and 15 mg (8-26) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group. The paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had a significantly reduced 24 h morphine consumption compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -6 mg [99% CI -10 to -3]; p<0·0001) and paracetamol plus dexamethasone (-4 mg [-8 to -1]; p=0·0013), however, none of the comparisons showed differences reaching the minimal important threshold of 8 mg. 91 (35%) of 258 participants in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had one or more adverse events, compared with 99 (38%) of 262 in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, 103 (39%) of 262 in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, and 165 (63%) of 261 in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group., Interpretation: In adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty, a combination of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone had the lowest morphine consumption within 24 h following surgery and the most favourable adverse event profile, with a lower incidence of serious and non-serious adverse events (primarily driven by differences in nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen., Funding: The Novo Nordisk Foundation and Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals' Research Fund., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests THL has been chair at an advisory board meeting (3 h, June 2023) for Paion, concerning Byfavo. SO has received personal payment from Johnson & Johnson for a lecture, and institutional payment has been made by Heraeus due to this author's role as lecturer and course moderator. CV has had travel expenses paid to their institution from Stryker. ML-L is Chairman at Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. All other authors declare no other competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease affect the activities of daily living at varying degree. While the effects of aerobic exercise on functional capacity are well-documented, the extent of change for different types of exercise in these chronic conditions remains unexplored. Additionally, there is conflicting evidence regarding the role of exercise in reducing body weight., Methods: We conducted systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and searched various databases from inception to July 2020. We included randomised clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care in people with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease irrespective of setting, publication status, year, and language. The outcomes assessed were i) functional capacity assessed through different scales separately i.e., Maximal Oxygen Uptake (VO 2 max), 6-min walk test (6MWT), 10-m walk test (10MWT), and ii) body weight., Results: We included 950 studies out of which 444 trials randomising 20,098 participants reported on various functional outcomes (355 trials) and body weight (169 trials). The median follow-up was 3 months (Interquartile ranges (IQR): 2.25 to 6). Exercise added to the usual care, improved VO 2 max (Mean Difference (MD):2.72 ml/kg/min; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.38 to 3.06; p < 0.01; I 2  = 96%), 6MWT (MD: 42.5 m; 95%CI 34.95 to 50.06; p < 0.01; I 2  = 96%), and 10MWT (MD: 0.06 m/s; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.10; p < 0.01; I 2  = 93%). Dynamic aerobic and resistance exercise showed a consistent improvement across various functional outcomes, whereas body-mind therapies (MD: 3.23 ml/kg/min; 95%CI 1.97 to 4.49, p < 0.01) seemed especially beneficial for VO 2 max and inspiratory muscle training (MD: 59.32 m; 95%CI 33.84 to 84.80; p < 0.01) for 6MWT. Exercise yielded significant reduction in body weight for people with hypertension (MD: -1.45 kg; 95%CI -2.47 to -0.43; p < 0.01), and type 2 diabetes (MD: -1.53 kg; 95%CI -2.19 to -0.87; p < 0.01) but not for cardiovascular disease with most pronounced for combined exercise (MD: -1.73 kg; 95%CI -3.08 to -0.39; p < 0.05). The very low certainty of evidence warrants cautious interpretations of the results., Conclusion: Exercise seemed to improve functional capacity for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease but the effectiveness seems to vary with different forms of exercise. The potentially superior improvement in VO 2 max and 6MWT by body-mind therapies and inspiratory muscle training calls for further exploration. Additionally, prescribing exercise for the sole purpose of losing weight may be a potential strategy for people with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. The extent of improvement in functional capacity and body weight reduction differed with different exercise regimens hence personalised exercise prescriptions tailored to individual needs may be of importance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019142313., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: International guidelines recommend body temperature control below 37.8 °C in unconscious patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA); however, a target temperature of 33 °C might lead to better outcomes when the initial rhythm is nonshockable., Objective: To assess whether hypothermia at 33 °C increases survival and improves function when compared with controlled normothermia in unconscious adults resuscitated from OHCA with initial nonshockable rhythm., Data Sources: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized clinical trials (Targeted Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest [TTM2; NCT02908308] and HYPERION [NCT01994772]) with blinded outcome assessors. Unconscious patients with OHCA and an initial nonshockable rhythm were eligible for the final analysis., Study Selection: The study cohorts had similar inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were randomized to hypothermia (target temperature 33 °C) or normothermia (target temperature 36.5 to 37.7 °C), according to different study protocols, for at least 24 hours. Additional analyses of mortality and unfavorable functional outcome were performed according to age, sex, initial rhythm, presence or absence of shock on admission, time to return of spontaneous circulation, lactate levels on admission, and the cardiac arrest hospital prognosis score., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Only patients who experienced OHCA and had a nonshockable rhythm with all causes of cardiac arrest were included. Variables from the 2 studies were available from the original data sets and pooled into a unique database and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a single file, which was checked for accuracy of numbers, distributions, and categories. The last day of follow-up from arrest was recorded for each patient. Adjustment for primary outcome and functional outcome was performed using age, gender, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes included unfavorable functional outcome at 3 to 6 months, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of 3 to 5., Results: A total of 912 patients were included, 490 from the TTM2 trial and 422 from the HYPERION trial. Of those, 442 had been assigned to hypothermia (48.4%; mean age, 65.5 years; 287 males [64.9%]) and 470 to normothermia (51.6%; mean age, 65.6 years; 327 males [69.6%]); 571 patients had a first monitored rhythm of asystole (62.6%) and 503 a presumed noncardiac cause of arrest (55.2%). At 3 months, 354 of 442 patients in the hypothermia group (80.1%) and 386 of 470 patients in the normothermia group (82.1%) had died (relative risk [RR] with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.20; P = .63). On the last day of follow-up, 386 of 429 in the hypothermia group (90.0%) and 413 of 463 in the normothermia group (89.2%) had an unfavorable functional outcome (RR with hypothermia, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15; P = .97). The association of hypothermia with death and functional outcome was consistent across the prespecified subgroups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, including unconscious survivors from OHCA with an initial nonshockable rhythm, hypothermia at 33 °C did not significantly improve survival or functional outcome.

Background: Emergence agitation and delirium in children remain a common clinical challenge in the post-anesthetic care unit. Preoperative oral melatonin has been suggested as an effective preventive drug with a favorable safety profile. The oral bioavailability of melatonin, however, is low. Therefore, the MELA-PAED trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraoperative intravenous melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients., Methods: MELA-PAED is a randomized, double-blind, parallel two-arm, multi-center, superiority trial comparing intravenous melatonin with placebo. Four hundred participants aged 1-6 years will be randomized 1:1 to either the intervention or placebo. The intervention consists of intravenous melatonin 0.15 mg/kg administered approximately 30 min before the end of surgery. Participants will be monitored in the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU), and the Post Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire for Ambulatory Surgery (PHBQ-AS) will be performed on days 1, 7, and 14 after the intervention. Serious Adverse Events (SAE) will be assessed up to 30 days after the intervention., Results: The primary outcome is the incidence of emergence agitation, assessed dichotomously as any Watcha score >2 during the participant's stay in the post-anesthetic care unit. Secondary outcomes are opioid consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit and adverse events. Exploratory outcomes include SAEs, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and time to awakening, to first oral intake, and to discharge readiness., Conclusion: The MELA-PAED trial investigates the efficacy of intravenous intraoperative melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. Results may provide further knowledge concerning the use of melatonin in pediatric perioperative care., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Question: Tricyclic antidepressants are used to treat depression worldwide, but the adverse effects have not been systematically assessed. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of all tricyclic antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder., Study Selection and Analysis: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and other sources from inception to January 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing tricyclic antidepressants versus placebo or 'active placebo' for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes were depressive symptoms measured on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), serious adverse events and quality of life. The minimal important difference was defined as three points on the HDRS-17., Findings: We included 103 trials randomising 10 590 participants. All results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was very low or low. All trials only assessed outcomes at the end of the treatment period at a maximum of 12 weeks after randomisation. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo (mean difference -3.77 HDRS-17 points; 95% CI -5.91 to -1.63; 17 trials). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect of tricyclic antidepressants compared with placebo on serious adverse events (OR 2.78; 95% CI 2.18 to 3.55; 35 trials), but the required information size was not reached. Only 2 out of 103 trials reported on quality of life and t-tests showed no evidence of a difference., Conclusions: The long-term effects of tricyclic antidepressants and the effects on quality of life are unknown. Short-term results suggest that tricyclic antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms while also increasing the risks of serious adverse events, but these results were based on low and very low certainty evidence., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021226161., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; MAH is a co-applicant and member of the DSMB of the RELEASE trial in Australia, funded by the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). MAH is co-founder and consultant for Outro Health, a digital clinic helping patients to stop unnecessary antidepressant medication. MAH has been paid honoraria by several NHS Trusts for grand rounds presentations, and by Salomon’s University and the University of Washington. MAH is a member of the Critical Psychiatry Network and the International Institute of Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal (IIPDW). JM is a co-investigator on REDUCE (programme grant studying discontinuation of antidepressants) and Chief Investigator on RADAR (programme grant to explore antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation). JM has been paid honoraria by University of Basel, Alberta Psychiatric Association, and Case Western University. JM receives royalties from Palgrave Macmillan and PCCS Books for three books about psychiatric drugs. JM is a co-chair person (unfunded position) of Critical Psychiatry Network. MPH receives royalties from Palgrave Macmillan for a book about antidepressants; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The DEX-2-TKA trial demonstrated that one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to investigate the prolonged effects of dexamethasone after the 48-h intervention period., Design: This was a prospective, pre-planned questionnaire follow-up on postoperative days 3-7 of patients in the DEX-2-TKA trial that randomly received: DX1 (dexamethasone 24 mg + placebo), DX2 (dexamethasone 24 mg + dexamethasone 24 mg), and placebo (placebo + placebo) perioperatively and 24 h later., Setting: A multicenter trial performed at five Danish hospitals., Participants: We analyzed 434 of 485 adult participants enrolled in the DEX-2-TKA trial., Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was difference between groups in average of all numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores reported in the morning, at bedtime, and the daily average pain on postoperative days 3-7. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality and patient satisfaction., Results: The median (interquartile range) pain intensity levels for postoperative days 3-7 were: DX2 3.2 (2.1-4.3); DX1 3.3 (2.3-4.1); and placebo 3.3 (2.5-4.7). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: 0 (95% confidence interval - 0.54 to 0.2), P = 0.38 between DX1 and placebo; 0.1 (-0.47 to 0.33), p = .87 between DX1 and DX2; and 0.1 (-0.6 to 0.13), p = .20 between DX2 and placebo. We found no relevant differences between groups on sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 nor for patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment., Conclusions: We found that neither one nor two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone demonstrated prolonged effects on overall pain or sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 after total knee arthroplasty. We also found that dexamethasone had no effect on patient satisfaction., Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789 (main result trial)., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Introduction: Exercise is the most recommended lifestyle intervention in managing hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease; however, evidence in lowering blood pressure is still inconsistent and often underpowered., Method: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care and its effect on systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in participants with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease searched in different databases from inception to July 2020. Our methodology was based on PRISMA and Cochrane Risk of Bias-version1. Five independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias in pairs., Results: Two hundred sixty-nine trials randomizing 15 023 participants reported our predefined outcomes. The majority of exercise reported in the review was dynamic aerobic exercise (61%), dynamic resistance (11%), and combined aerobic and resistance exercise (15%). The trials included participants with hypertension (33%), type 2 diabetes (28%), or cardiovascular disease (37%). Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses reported that adding exercise to usual care reduced SBP [mean difference (MD) MD: -4.1 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -4.99 to -3.14; P  < 0.01; I2  = 95.3%] and DBP (MD: -2.6 mmHg; 95% CI -3.22 to -2.07, P  < 0.01; I2  = 94%). Test of interaction showed that the reduction of SBP and DBP was almost two times higher among trials from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) as compared to high-income countries (HICs). The exercise induced SBP reduction was also higher among participants with hypertension and type 2 diabetes compared to participants with cardiovascular disease. The very low certainty of evidence warrants a cautious interpretation of the present results., Conclusion: Adding any type of exercise to usual care may be a potential complementary strategy for optimal management of blood pressure for patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, especially, in LMICs.PROSPERO registration number CRD42019142313., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The 2021 guidelines endorsed by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) recommend using highly malignant electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns (HMEP; suppression or burst-suppression) at > 24 h after cardiac arrest (CA) in combination with at least one other concordant predictor to prognosticate poor neurological outcome. We evaluated the prognostic accuracy of HMEP in a large multicentre cohort and investigated the added value of absent EEG reactivity., Methods: This is a pre-planned prognostic substudy of the Targeted Temperature Management trial 2. The presence of HMEP and background reactivity to external stimuli on EEG recorded > 24 h after CA was prospectively reported. Poor outcome was measured at 6 months and defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6. Prognostication was multimodal, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) was not allowed before 96 h after CA., Results: 845 patients at 59 sites were included. Of these, 579 (69%) had poor outcome, including 304 (36%) with WLST due to poor neurological prognosis. EEG was recorded at a median of 71 h (interquartile range [IQR] 52-93) after CA. HMEP at > 24 h from CA had 50% [95% confidence interval [CI] 46-54] sensitivity and 93% [90-96] specificity to predict poor outcome. Specificity was similar (93%) in 541 patients without WLST. When HMEP were unreactive, specificity improved to 97% [94-99] (p = 0.008)., Conclusion: The specificity of the ERC-ESICM-recommended EEG patterns for predicting poor outcome after CA exceeds 90% but is lower than in previous studies, suggesting that large-scale implementation may reduce their accuracy. Combining HMEP with an unreactive EEG background significantly improved specificity. As in other prognostication studies, a self-fulfilling prophecy bias may have contributed to observed results., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants., Methods: The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol., Discussion: This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The SafeBoosC project aims to test the clinical value of non-invasive cerebral oximetry by near-infrared spectroscopy in newborn infants. The purpose is to establish whether cerebral oximetry can be used to save newborn infants' lives and brains or not. Newborns contribute heavily to total childhood mortality and neonatal brain damage is the cause of a large part of handicaps such as cerebral palsy. The objective of the SafeBoosC-IIIv trial is to evaluate the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns., Methods/design: SafeBoosC-IIIv is an investigator-initiated, multinational, randomised, pragmatic phase-III clinical trial. The inclusion criteria will be newborns with a gestational age more than 28 + 0 weeks, postnatal age less than 28 days, predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 24 h, and prior informed consent from the parents or deferred consent or absence of opt-out. The exclusion criteria will be no available cerebral oximeter, suspicion of or confirmed brain injury or disorder, or congenital heart disease likely to require surgery. A total of 3000 participants will be randomised in 60 neonatal intensive care units from 16 countries, in a 1:1 allocation ratio to cerebral oximetry versus usual care. Participants in the cerebral oximetry group will undergo cerebral oximetry monitoring during mechanical ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit for as long as deemed useful by the treating physician or until 28 days of life. The participants in the cerebral oximetry group will be treated according to the SafeBoosC treatment guideline. Participants in the usual care group will not receive cerebral oximetry and will receive usual care. We use two co-primary outcomes: (1) a composite of death from any cause or moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 2 years of corrected age and (2) the non-verbal cognitive score of the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) at 2 years of corrected age., Discussion: There is need for a randomised clinical trial to evaluate cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns., Trial Registration: The protocol is registered at www., Clinicaltrials: gov (NCT05907317; registered 18 June 2023)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: In the SafeBoosC-III trial, treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth did not reduce the incidence of death or severe brain injury in extremely preterm infants at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, as compared with usual care. Despite an association between severe brain injury diagnosed in the neonatal period and later neurodevelopmental disability, this relationship is not always strong. The objective of the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study is to assess mortality, neurodevelopmental disability, or any harm in trial participants at 2 years of corrected age. One important challenge is the lack of funding for local costs for a trial-specific assessment., Methods: Of the 1601 infants randomised in the SafeBoosC-III trial, 1276 infants were alive at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and will potentially be available for the 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria will be enrollment in a neonatal intensive care unit taking part in the follow-up study and parental consent if required by local regulations. We aim to collect data from routine follow-up programmes between the ages of 18 and 30 months of corrected age. If no routine follow-up has been conducted, we will collect informal assessments from other health care records from the age of at least 12 months. A local co-investigator blinded to group allocation will classify outcomes based on these records. We will supplement this with parental questionnaires including the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised. There will be two co-primary outcomes: the composite of death or moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability and mean Bayley-III/IV cognitive score. We will use a 3-tier model for prioritisation, based on the quality of data. This approach has been chosen to minimise loss to follow-up assuming that little data is better than no data at all., Discussion: Follow-up at the age of 2 years is important for intervention trials in the newborn period as only time can show real benefits and harms later in childhood. To decrease the risk of generalisation and data-driven biased conclusions, we present a detailed description of the methodology for the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study. As funding is limited, a pragmatic approach is necessary., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05134116 . Registered on 24 November 2021., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: The Targeted Hypothermia vs Targeted Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial reported no difference in mortality or poor functional outcome at 6 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This predefined exploratory analysis provides more detailed estimation of brain dysfunction for the comparison of the 2 intervention regimens., Objectives: To investigate the effects of targeted hypothermia vs targeted normothermia on functional outcome with focus on societal participation and cognitive function in survivors 6 months after OHCA., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a predefined analysis of an international multicenter, randomized clinical trial that took place from November 2017 to January 2020 and included participants at 61 hospitals in 14 countries. A structured follow-up for survivors performed at 6 months was by masked outcome assessors. The last follow-up took place in October 2020. Participants included 1861 adult (older than 18 years) patients with OHCA who were comatose at hospital admission. At 6 months, 939 of 1861 were alive and invited to a follow-up, of which 103 of 939 declined or were missing., Interventions: Randomization 1:1 to temperature control with targeted hypothermia at 33 °C or targeted normothermia and early treatment of fever (37.8 °C or higher)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Functional outcome focusing on societal participation assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended ([GOSE] 1 to 8) and cognitive function assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ([MoCA] 0 to 30) and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test ([SDMT] z scores). Higher scores represent better outcomes., Results: At 6 months, 836 of 939 survivors with a mean age of 60 (SD, 13) (range, 18 to 88) years (700 of 836 male [84%]) participated in the follow-up. There were no differences between the 2 intervention groups in functional outcome focusing on societal participation (GOSE score, odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.17; P = .46) or in cognitive function by MoCA (mean difference, 0.36; 95% CI,-0.33 to 1.05; P = .37) and SDMT (mean difference, 0.06; 95% CI,-0.16 to 0.27; P = .62). Limitations in societal participation (GOSE score less than 7) were common regardless of intervention (hypothermia, 178 of 415 [43%]; normothermia, 168 of 419 [40%]). Cognitive impairment was identified in 353 of 599 survivors (59%)., Conclusions: In this predefined analysis of comatose patients after OHCA, hypothermia did not lead to better functional outcome assessed with a focus on societal participation and cognitive function than management with normothermia. At 6 months, many survivors had not regained their pre-arrest activities and roles, and mild cognitive dysfunction was common., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908308.

Background: Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes., Methods: We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE., Results: Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI -4.85, 4.86, I 2  = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI -11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence)., Conclusions: We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020181144., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain., Methods/design: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors ('bias') and random errors ('play of chance') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Discussion: Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019140334., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Guidelines recommend targeting mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg in patients after cardiac arrest (CA). Recent trials have studied the effects of targeting a higher MAP as compared to a lower MAP after CA. We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the effects of higher versus lower MAP targets on patient outcome., Method: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Scopus, the Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, Google Scholar and the Turning Research into Practice database to identify trials randomizing patients to higher (≥71 mmHg) or lower (≤70 mmHg) MAP targets after CA and resuscitation. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2 (RoB 2) to assess for risk of bias. The primary outcomes were 180-day all-cause mortality and poor neurologic recovery defined by a modified Rankin score of 4-6 or a cerebral performance category score of 3-5., Results: Four eligible clinical trials were identified, randomizing a total of 1,087 patients. All the included trials were assessed as having a low risk for bias. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval for 180-day all-cause mortality for a higher versus a lower MAP target was 1.08 (0.92-1.26) and for poor neurologic recovery 1.01 (0.86-1.19). Trial sequential analysis showed that a 25% or higher treatment effect, i.e., RR < 0.75, can be excluded. No difference in serious adverse events was found between the higher and lower MAP groups., Conclusions: Targeting a higher MAP compared to a lower MAP is unlikely to reduce mortality or improve neurologic recovery after CA. Only a large treatment effect above 25% (RR < 0.75) could be excluded, and future studies are needed to investigate if relevant but lower treatment effect exists. Targeting a higher MAP was not associated with any increase in adverse effects., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘Christian Hassager: Research grants from Lundbeck Foundation (R186-2015-2132) and Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF20OC0064043). Johanna Hästbacka: Advisory board work for Paion. Markus Skrifvars: Speaker fees from BARD Medical.’., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a condition of poor growth of the fetus in utero. One of the causes of FGR is placental insufficiency. Severe early-onset FGR at < 32 weeks of gestation occurs in an estimated 0.4% of pregnancies. This extreme phenotype is associated with a high risk of fetal death, neonatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity. Currently, there is no causal treatment, and management is focused on indicated preterm birth to prevent fetal death. Interest has risen in interventions that aim to improve placental function by administration of pharmacological agents affecting the nitric oxide pathway causing vasodilatation., Objectives: The objective of this systematic review and aggregate data meta-analysis is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or different drugs affecting this pathway against each other, in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR., Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 July 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or another drug affecting this pathway in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR of placental origin, for inclusion in this review., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis., Main Results: We included a total of eight studies (679 women) in this review, all of which contributed to the data and analysis. The identified studies report on five different comparisons: sildenafil compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy, L-arginine compared with placebo or no therapy, nitroglycerin compared with placebo or no therapy and sildenafil compared with nitroglycerin. The risk of bias of included studies was judged as low or unclear. In two studies the intervention was not blinded. The certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes was judged as moderate for the intervention sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerine (due to low number of participants and low number of events). For the intervention L-arginine, our primary outcomes were not reported. Sildenafil citrate compared to placebo or no therapy (5 studies, 516 women) Five studies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Netherlands, the UK and Brazil) involving 516 pregnant women with FGR were included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate. Compared with placebo or no therapy, sildenafil probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27, 5 studies, 516 women); may reduce fetal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12, 5 studies, 516 women), and increase neonatal mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33, 5 studies, 397 women), although the results are uncertain for fetal and neonatal mortality as 95% confidence intervals are wide crossing the line of no effect. Tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 87 women) One study (Japan) involving 87 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, one study, 87 women); fetal mortality (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96, one study, 87 women); and neonatal mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.70, one study, 83 women). L-Arginine compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 43 women) One study (France) involving 43 pregnant women with FGR was included. This study did not assess our primary outcomes. Nitroglycerin compared to placebo or no therapy (1 studies, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. Sildenafil citrate compared to nitroglycerin (1 study, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups., Authors' Conclusions: Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway probably do not seem to influence all-cause (fetal and neonatal) mortality in pregnant women carrying a baby with FGR, although more evidence is needed. The certainty of this evidence is moderate for sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerin. For sildenafil a fair amount of data are available from randomised clinical trials, but with low numbers of participants. Therefore, the certainty of evidence is moderate. For the other interventions investigated in this review there are insufficient data, meaning we do not know whether these interventions improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in pregnant women with FGR., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding exercise to usual care for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or cardiovascular disease., Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials., Data Sources: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and BIOSIS searched from inception to July 2020., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: We included all randomised clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care in participants with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease irrespective of setting, publication status, year and language., Outcome and Measures: The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Five independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias in pairs. Our methodology was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Cochrane Risk of Bias-version 1., Results: We included 950 trials, of which 248 trials randomising 21 633 participants reported on our predefined outcomes. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The major types of exercise reported were dynamic aerobic exercise (126/248 trials), dynamic resistance exercise (25/248 trials), and combined aerobic and resistance exercise (58/248 trials). The study participants were included due to cardiovascular diseases (189/248 trials), type 2 diabetes (41/248 trials) or hypertension (16/248 trials). The median intervention period was 3 months (IQR: 2-4 months) and the median follow-up period was 6 months (IQR: 3-8 months) after randomisation. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding exercise to usual care when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93; I 2 =0%, moderate certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88; I 2 =0%, moderate certainty of evidence). We did not find evidence of a difference between trials from different economic regions, type of participants, type of exercise or duration of follow-up. Quality of life was assessed using several different tools, but the results generally showed that exercise improved quality of life, but the effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important difference., Conclusions: A short duration of any type of exercise seems to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in patients with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular diseases. Exercise seems to have statistically significant effects on quality of life, but the effect sizes seem minimal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019142313., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-saving., (© 2023 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients., Setting: Outpatient treatment., Participants: Participants with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the associated SARS-CoV-2 virus irrespective of age, sex and comorbidities., Interventions: Drug interventions authorised by EMA or FDA., Primary Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events., Results: We included 17 clinical trials randomising 16 257 participants to 8 different interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. 15/17 of the included trials (88.2%) were assessed at high risk of bias. Only molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir seemed to improve both our primary outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of death (relative risk (RR) 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64; p=0.0145, 2 trials; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84; p=0.0018, 5 trials; very low certainty of evidence). Fisher's exact test showed that ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir reduced the risk of death (p=0.0002, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (p < 0.0001, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) in 1 trial including 2246 patients, while another trial including 1140 patients reported 0 deaths in both groups., Conclusions: The certainty of the evidence was very low, but, from the results of this study, molnupiravir showed the most consistent benefit and ranked highest among the approved interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. The lack of certain evidence should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19 for prevention of disease progression., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020178787., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The optimal psychotherapy duration for mental health disorders is unclear. Our aim was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders., Method: We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished randomised clinical trials assessing different durations of the same psychotherapy type before June 27, 2022. Our methodology was based on Cochrane and an eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were quality of life, serious adverse events, and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were suicide or suicide-attempts, self-harm, and level of functioning., Results: We included 19 trials randomising 3,447 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Three single trials met the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 6 versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality when assessing quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning. One single trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions to 8 and 12 weeks of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 20 weeks versus 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- or anxiety disorders when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. It was only possible to conduct two pre-planned meta-analyses. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders on anxiety symptoms at end of treatment (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.63; p = 0.77; I 2  = 73%; four trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.40; p = 0.20; I 2  = 21%; two trials; very low certainty)., Conclusions: The evidence for shorter versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders is currently unclear. We only identified 19 randomised clinical trials. More trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors assessing participants at different levels of psychopathological severity are urgently needed., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019128535., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the 'true' intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group., Methods and Analysis: We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-1.09, 1.10-1.19, 1.20-1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy., Ethics and Dissemination: Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Heart failure is a prevalent condition and a frequent cause of hospital readmissions and poor quality of life. Teleconsultation support from cardiologists to primary care physicians managing patients with heart failure may improve care, but the effect on patient-relevant outcomes is unclear. We aim to evaluate whether collaboration through a novel teleconsultation platform in the Brazilian Heart Insufficiency with Telemedicine (BRAHIT) project, tested on a previous feasibility study, can improve patient-relevant outcomes. We will conduct a parallel-group, two-arm, cluster-randomised superiority trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, with primary care practices from Rio de Janeiro as clusters. Physicians from the intervention group practices will receive teleconsultation support from a cardiologist to assist patients discharged from hospitals after admission for heart failure. In contrast, physicians from the control group practices will perform usual care. We will include 10 patients per each of the 80 enrolled practices (n = 800). The primary outcome will be a composite of mortality and hospital admissions after six months. Secondary outcomes will be adverse events, symptoms frequency, quality of life, and primary care physicians' compliance with treatment guidelines. We hypothesise that teleconsulting support will improve patient outcomes.

Background: The use of cerebral oximetry monitoring in the care of extremely preterm infants is increasing. However, evidence that its use improves clinical outcomes is lacking., Methods: In this randomized, phase 3 trial conducted at 70 sites in 17 countries, we assigned extremely preterm infants (gestational age, <28 weeks), within 6 hours after birth, to receive treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth or to receive usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of death or severe brain injury on cerebral ultrasonography at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Serious adverse events that were assessed were death, severe brain injury, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, and late-onset sepsis., Results: A total of 1601 infants underwent randomization and 1579 (98.6%) were evaluated for the primary outcome. At 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, death or severe brain injury had occurred in 272 of 772 infants (35.2%) in the cerebral oximetry group, as compared with 274 of 807 infants (34.0%) in the usual-care group (relative risk with cerebral oximetry, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.18; P = 0.64). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups., Conclusions: In extremely preterm infants, treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth was not associated with a lower incidence of death or severe brain injury at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age than usual care. (Funded by the Elsass Foundation and others; SafeBoosC-III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03770741.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: A key decision in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is choosing between a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy as the main strategy. When choosing rate control, the optimal heart rate target is uncertain. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation trial is a randomized, multicenter, two-group, superiority trial comparing strict rate control versus lenient rate control in patients with either persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at inclusion. To prevent bias arising from selective reporting and data-driven analyses, we developed a predefined description of the statistical analysis., Methods: The primary outcome of this trial is the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire. A total of 350 participants will be enrolled based on a minimal important difference of 3 points on the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire, a standard deviation of 10 points, a statistical power of 80% (beta of 20%), and an acceptable risk of type I error of 5%. All secondary, exploratory, and echocardiographic outcomes will be hypothesis-generating. The analyses of all outcomes will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will analyze continuous outcomes using linear regression adjusting for "site," type of atrial fibrillation at inclusion (persistent/ permanent), left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40% or < 40%), and the baseline value of the outcome (all as fixed effects). We define our threshold for statistical significance as a p-value of 0.05 and assessments of clinical significance will be based on the anticipated intervention effects defined in the sample size and power estimations. Thresholds for both statistical and clinical significance will be assessed according to the 5-step procedure proposed by Jakobsen and colleagues., Discussion: This statistical analysis plan will be published prior to enrolment completion and before any data are available and is sought to increase the validity of the DANish Atrial Fibrillation trial., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04542785. Registered on Sept 09, 2020., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews., Methods: This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses., Discussion: Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022315395., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The RECIPE trial systematically investigates the effects of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty. To preserve transparency, minimise risk of bias and to prevent data-driven analysis, we present this detailed statistical analysis plan., Methods: The RECIPE trial is a randomised, blinded, parallel four-group multicenter clinical trial for patients undergoing planned primary total hip arthroplasty. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 h postoperatively. Primary outcome is total opioid consumption 0-24 h after end of surgery. Primary analysis will be performed in the modified intention to treat population of all patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, and all analyses will be stratified for site. We will perform pairwise comparisons between each of the four groups. The primary outcome will be analysed using the van Elteren test and we will present Hodges-Lehmann median differences and confidence intervals. Binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression. To preserve a family-wise error rate of <0.05, we will use a Bonferroni-adjusted alfa of 0.05/6 = 0.0083 for all six pairwise comparisons between groups when analysing the primary outcome. We will systematically assess the underlying statistical assumptions for each analysis. Data will be analysed by two blinded independent statisticians, and we will write abstracts covering all possible combinations of conclusions, before breaking the blind., Discussion: The RECIPE trial will provide important information on benefit and harm of combinations of the most frequently used non-opioid analgesics for pain after primary hip arthroplasty., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Introduction: Administration of large volumes of fluids is associated with poor outcome in septic shock. Recent data suggest that non-resuscitation fluids are the major source of fluids in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients suffering from septic shock. The present trial is designed to test the hypothesis that a protocol targeting this source of fluids can reduce fluid administration compared with usual care., Methods and Analysis: The design will be a multicentre, randomised, feasibility trial. Adult patients admitted to ICUs with septic shock will be randomised within 12 hours of admission to receive non-resuscitation fluids either according to a restrictive protocol or to receive usual care. The healthcare providers involved in the care of participants will not be blinded. The participants, outcome assessors at the 6-month follow-up and statisticians will be blinded. Primary outcome will be litres of fluids administered within 3 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be proportion of randomised participants with outcome data on all-cause mortality; days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 90 days of inclusion; any acute kidney injury and ischaemic events in the ICU (cerebral, cardiac, intestinal or limb ischaemia); proportion of surviving randomised patients who were assessed by European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 5-Level questionnaire and Montreal Cognitive Assessment; proportion of all eligible patients who were randomised and proportion of participants experiencing at least one protocol violation., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been obtained in Sweden. Results of the primary and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: NCT05249088., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The evidence on the effects of metformin and insulin in type 2 diabetes patients on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes is unclear., Methods: The Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial is an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design conducted at eight hospitals in Denmark. Participants with type 2 diabetes were randomised to metformin (n = 206) versus placebo (n = 206); in combination with open-label biphasic insulin aspart one to three times daily (n = 137) versus insulin aspart three times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n = 138) versus insulin detemir once daily (n = 137).We present a detailed description of the methodology and statistical analysis of the clinical CIMT outcomes including a detailed description of tests of the assumptions behind the statistical analyses. The outcomes are quality of life (Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)), Diabetes Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (assessed at entry and 18 months after randomisation) and cardiovascular outcomes including time to a composite of either myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral amputation, coronary revascularisation, peripheral revascularisation, or death., Discussions: This statistical analysis plan ensure the highest possible quality of the subsequent post-hoc analyses., Trial Registration: The protocol was approved by the Regional Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics (H-D-2007-112), the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT: 2007-006665-33 CIMT), and registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943, 8 th of April 2008)., Competing Interests: Sten Madsbad: Advisory boards: AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Eli Lilly; Intarcia Therapeutics; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Sanofi. Lecture fees: AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novo Nordisk; Sanofi. Research Grant Recipient: Novo Nordisk; Boehringer Ingelheim. Leif Breum: Advisory boards: AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novo Nordisk; Sanofi. Lecture fees: AstraZeneca; Lundbeck, Otsuka. Louise Lundby-Christensen, Christian Ovesen, Thomas Almdal: own shares in Novo Nordisk A/S. Elisabeth R Mathiesen: Advisory board: Novo Nordisk. Markus Harboe Olsen. Janus C Jakobsen, Christian Gluud, Simone B Sneppen, Christoffer Hedetoft, Michael E. Røder, Henrik Vestergaard, Niels Wiinberg, Thure Krarup: none declared., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) carries a high postoperative mortality. In this preplanned, subgroup analysis of the randomized DEX-2-TKA Trial, we investigated the effect of dexamethasone versus placebo on the concentration of cardiac troponin I and T (TnI and TnT) on the first postoperative morning after total knee arthroplasty. In addition, frequency of MINS, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular events where evaluated., Methods: We included 290 patients who received either 24 mg of dexamethasone intravenously (given perioperatively) or placebo. Blood samples were analyzed as either TnI or T depending on trial site., Results: A total of 236 samples were eligible for analysis of TnI and 38 samples for TnT on the first postoperative morning. The median (IQR) TnI concentration was 4.6 ng/L (0-7.2 ng/L) in the dexamethasone group and 4.5ng/l (0-7.0 ng/L) in the placebo group (P = .96) on the first postoperative morning. The median TnT was 9 ng/L (6-11 ng/L) in the dexamethasone group and 8 ng/L (5-10 ng/L) in the placebo group (P = .68). The frequencies of MINS, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular events were similar in the compared groups, but these analyses were underpowered., Conclusion: We found no effect of dexamethasone on postoperative concentration of troponin I or T on the first postoperative morning after total knee arthroplasty., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The patient-relevant minimal important difference for opioid consumption remains undetermined, despite its frequent use as primary outcome in trials on postoperative pain management. A minimal important difference is necessary to evaluate whether significant trial results are clinically relevant. Further, it can be used as effect size to ensure that trials are powered to find clinically relevant effects. By exploring the dose-response relationship between postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects, we aim to approximate the minimal important difference in opioid consumption anchored to opioid-related adverse effects., Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of aggregated data from two clinical trials (PANSAID NCT02571361 and DEX2TKA NCT03506789) and one observational cohort study (Pain Map NCT02340052) on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome is the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption between patients with no opioid-related adverse effects and patients experiencing the mildest degree of one or more opioid-related adverse effects (i.e., mild nausea, sedation and/or dizziness or vomiting). Secondary outcomes include the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption that corresponds to one point on a cumulated opioid-related adverse event 0-10 scale. Further, we will explore the proportion of patients that experience opioid-related adverse effects for consecutive opioid dose intervals of 2 mg iv morphine equivalents. Quantile regression will be used to assess any significant interactions with patient baseline characteristics., Conclusions: This study will hopefully bring us one step closer to determining relevant opioid reductions and thereby improve our understanding of intervention effects and planning of future trials., (© 2022 The Authors. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain., Design: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Data Sources: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain., Main Outcome Measures: All-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep., Results: We included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis., Conclusions: Cannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Barakji et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and prevalent psychiatric disorder. Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) is an evidence-based intervention for BPD, and several countries offer treatment programs for BPD lasting for years, which is resource demanding. No previous trial has compared short-term with long-term MBT., Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of short-term versus long-term MBT for outpatients with BPD., Methods: Adult outpatients (≥18 years) with subthreshold or diagnosed BPD were randomly assigned (1:1) to short-term MBT (5 months) or long-term MBT (14 months). The primary outcome was BPD symptoms assessed with the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder. Secondary outcomes were functional impairment, quality of life, global functioning, and severe self-harm. All outcomes were primarily assessed at 16 months after randomization. This trial was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03677037., Results: Between October 4, 2018, and December 3, 2020, we randomly assigned 166 participants to short-term MBT (n = 84) or long-term MBT (n = 82). Regression analyses showed no evidence of a difference when assessing BPD symptoms (MD 0.99; 95% CI: -1.06 to 3.03; p = 0.341), level of functioning (MD 1.44; 95% CI: -1.43 to 4.32; p = 0.321), quality of life (MD -0.91; 95% CI: -4.62 to 2.79; p = 0.626), global functioning (MD -2.25; 95% CI: -6.70 to 2.20; p = 0.318), or severe self-harm (RR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.70-2.84; p = 0.335). More participants in the long-term MBT group had a serious adverse event compared with short-term MBT (RR 1.63; 95% CI: 0.94-3.07; p = 0.088), primarily driven by a difference in psychiatric hospitalizations (RR 2.03; 95% CI: 0.99-5.09; p = 0.056)., Conclusion: Long-term MBT did not lead to lower levels of BPD symptoms, nor did it influence any of the secondary outcomes compared with short-term MBT., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Coronary artery bypass grafting can be conducted using the radial artery as a bypass graft. However, it remains unclear which harvesting method is superior, i.e. endoscopic or open radial artery, and which site for proximal anastomosis of the radial artery has the greatest benefits?, Methods: The NEO Trial is a single site randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The first comparison assesses endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest with a primary outcome of hand function and secondary outcomes of neurological deficits through clinical exams and neurophysiological studies. The primary outcome is postoperatively hand function at three months. We anticipate a mean difference of 3 points with a standard deviation of 8 points, a power of 90%, and a type I error of 5%, resulting in a required sample size of 300 participants randomised 1:1. Secondary outcomes are neurological deficits (based on nerve conduction measurements, algometry test and von Frey hair test), clinical neurological examination of cutaneous sensibility, and registration of complications in the donor arm (haematoma formation, wound dehiscence, and/or infection). The second comparison assesses two different proximal anastomotic sites, i.e. aorto-radial anastomosis versus mammario-radial anastomosis. The primary outcome is a composite of cerebrovascular events and the secondary outcome is graft patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography-scan. These outcomes will be assessed at 1 year postoperatively, and the results of this comparison will be exploratory only. Both comparisons will be analysed using intention-to-treat and intervention groups will be compared using linear regression, logistic regression, or Mann-Whitney U test depending on data type. Two independent statisticians will follow the present plan and conduct the analyses which will hereafter be fused into a final analysis based on consensus., Conclusion: This detailed analysis plan will increase the validity of the NEO trial results by predefining the statistical analysis in detail., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886 . Registered 25 February 2013. Danish Ethics committee number: H-3-2012-116. Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/jr. n:30-0838., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is common in adolescents receiving psychiatric treatment and is a significant risk factor for suicidal behavior. There are few randomised clinical trials assessing interventions for NSSI in youth, and knowledge about internet-delivered interventions is limited., Objective: We assessed the feasibility of Internet based Emotion Regulation Individual Therapy for Adolescents (ERITA) in psychiatric outpatients aged 13-17 years who engaged in NSSI., Method: A randomised clinical feasibility trial with a parallel group design. Non-suicidal self-injury engaging patients were recruited from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Outpatient Services in the Capital Region of Denmark from May to October 2020. ERITA was provided as add-on to treatment as usual (TAU). ERITA is a therapist-guided, internet-based program of emotion regulation and skills training involving a parent. The control intervention was TAU. Feasibility outcomes were the proportion who completed follow-up interviews at end of intervention; proportion of eligible patients who participated in the trial; proportion of participants completing ERITA. We further investigated relevant exploratory outcomes, including adverse risk-related events., Results: We included 30 adolescent participants, 15 in each group (ERITA vs. Treatment as usual). 90% (95% CI, 72%-97%) of the participants completed post-treatment interviews; 54% (95% CI, 40%-67%) of the eligible participants were included and randomised; and 87% (95% CI, 58%-98%) of the participants completed at least six out of 11 ERITA modules. We identified no difference for the primary exploratory clinical outcome of NSSI between the two groups., Conclusion: There are few randomised clinical trials assessing interventions for NSSI in youth, and knowledge about internet-delivered interventions is limited. Based on our results we conclude that a large-scale trial seems feasible and warranted., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that they have no competing or potential conflicts of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. JCPP Advances published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.)