Search

In this article the author name Miranda Langendam was incorrectly written as Miranda Langedam. The corrected author list is given above. The original article has been corrected.

Introduction: Greater occipital nerve block (GONB) is a minimally invasive procedure frequently used in patients with chronic migraine (CM); however, the quality of the evidence supporting its use is still unknown. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review, meta-analysis and quality assessment of GONB local anaesthetics combined or not with corticosteroids to prevent CM. Methods: We searched Medline, Scopus and Web of Science up to October 2020. We included randomized control trials (RCT) and observational studies assessing GONB without language restrictions. Two researchers selected the studies, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The primary outcomes measured to assess efficacy were the change from baseline in the intensity and frequency of headache in the intervention group compared to placebo at a onetime point. We performed a meta-analysis with random effect models, and we evaluated random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA). We assessed the risk of bias (ROB) with the ROB2 tool and the certainty of the evidence with GRADE. Results: We identified 2864 studies in the databases and included three RCTs for quantitative synthesis. Most ROB assessments were ‘high risk’ or ‘some concerns’. GONB reduced the intensity of headaches at the end of the first month (MD: −1.35, 95% CI: −2.12 to −0.59) and the second month (MD: -2.10, CI 95%: −2.94 to −1.26) as well as the frequency of headaches (first month: MD: −4.45 days, 95% CI: −6.56 to −2.34 days; second month: MD: -5.49, 95% CI −8.94 to −2.03 days). Corticosteroids did not show a significant decrease in the frequency of headaches during the first month of treatment (MD: −1.1 days, 95% CI: −4.1 to 1.8, p =.45). Included trials reported similar adverse events between groups. The exploratory TSA showed inconclusive results. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low because of the substantial risk of bias and imprecision. Conclusion: The limited evidence available shows that GONB with local anaesthetics could reduce headache frequency and intensity compared to placebo, while adding corticosteroids did not show additional benefits. GONB was safe with a similar number of minor adverse events. However, our confidence in these estimates is very low since the evidence is based on a few trials, with a small sample size and a significant risk of bias. In addition, the exploratory TSA was inconclusive, so we need larger and specific trials.

Background Population-based studies characterising outcomes of COVID-19 in European settings are limited, and effects of socio-economic status (SES) on outcomes have not been widely investigated. Aim We describe the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 cases, highlighting incidence and mortality rate differences across SES during the first wave in Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. Methods This population-based study reports individual-level data of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases diagnosed from 24 February to 4 May 2020, notified to the Public Health Agency of Barcelona and followed until 15 June 2020. We analysed end-of-study vital status and the effects of chronic conditions on mortality using logistic regression. Geocoded addresses were linked to basic health area SES data, estimated using the composed socio-economic index. We estimated age-standardised incidence, hospitalisation, and mortality rates by SES. Results Of 15,554 COVID-19-confirmed cases, the majority were women (n = 9,028; 58%), median age was 63 years (interquartile range: 46–83), 8,046 (54%) required hospitalisation, and 2,287 (15%) cases died. Prevalence of chronic conditions varied across SES, and multiple chronic conditions increased risk of death (≥ 3, adjusted odds ratio: 2.3). Age-standardised rates (incidence, hospitalisation, mortality) were highest in the most deprived SES quartile (incidence: 1,011 (95% confidence interval (CI): 975–1,047); hospitalisation: 619 (95% CI: 591–648); mortality: 150 (95% CI: 136–165)) and lowest in the most affluent (incidence: 784 (95% CI: 759–809); hospitalisation: 400 (95% CI: 382–418); mortality: 121 (95% CI: 112–131)). Conclusions COVID-19 outcomes varied markedly across SES, underscoring the need to implement effective preventive strategies for vulnerable populations.

BELE Study Group leaded by Xavier Castells are listed here in alphabetical order and grouped by institution: (a) IMIM (Hospital Del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain: Andrea Burón, Xavier Castells, Merce Comas, Jose Maria Corominas, Javier Louro, Ana Rodríguez-Arana, Marta Román, Maria Sala, Sonia Servitja, Mar Vernet-Tomas; (b) Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain: Marisa Baré, Nuria Tora; (c) Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain: Llucia Benito, Carmen Vidal (d) Hospital Santa Caterina, Girona, Spain: Joana Ferrer; (e) Catalan Institute of Oncology, Girona, Spain: Rafael Marcos-Gragera; (f) Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain: Judit Solà-Roca, María Jesús Quintana; (g) General Directorate of Public Health, Government of Cantabria, Spain: Mar Sánchez; (h) Principality of Astúrias Health Service, Spain: Miguel Prieto; (i) Fundació Lliga per a La Investigació i Prevenció Del Cáncer, Tarragona, Spain: Francina Saladié, Jaume Galceran; (j) Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain; Xavier Bargalló, Isabel Torá-Rocamora; (k) Vallés Oriental Breast Cancer Early Detection Program, Spain; Lupe Peñalva; (l) Catalonian Cancer Strategy, Barcelona, Spain: Josep Alfons Espinàs. IRIS Study Group leaded by Marta Román are listed here in alphabetical order and grouped by institution: (a) IMIM (Hospital Del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain: Rodrigo Alcantara, Xavier Castells, Laia Domingo, Javier Louro, Margarita Posso, Maria Sala, Ignasi Tusquets, Ivonne Vazquez, Mar Vernet-Tomas; (b) Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain: Marisa Baré, Javier del Riego; (c) Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain: Llucia Benito, Carmen Vidal (d) Hospital Santa Caterina, Girona, Spain: Joana Ferrer; (e) Catalan Institute of Oncology, Girona, Spain: Rafael Marcos-Gragera; (f) Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain: Judit Solà-Roca, María Jesús Quintana; (g) General Directorate of Public Health, Government of Cantabria, Spain: Mar Sánchez; (h) Principality of Astúrias Health Service, Spain: Miguel Prieto; (i) Fundació Lliga per a La Investigació i Prevenció Del Cáncer, Tarragona, Spain: Francina Saladié, Jaume Galceran; (j) Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain; Xavier Bargalló, Isabel Torá-Rocamora; (k) Vallés Oriental Breast Cancer Early Detection Program, Spain; Lupe Peñalva; (l) Catalonian Cancer Strategy, Barcelona, Spain: Josep Alfons Espinàs Background Several studies have proposed personalized strategies based on women’s individual breast cancer risk to improve the effectiveness of breast cancer screening. We designed and internally validated an individualized risk prediction model for women eligible for mammography screening. Methods Retrospective cohort study of 121,969 women aged 50 to 69 years, screened at the long-standing population-based screening program in Spain between 1995 and 2015 and followed up until 2017. We used partly conditional Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and individual risks for age, family history of breast cancer, previous benign breast disease, and previous mammographic features. We internally validated our model with the expected-to-observed ratio and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results During a mean follow-up of 7.5 years, 2,058 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. All three risk factors were strongly associated with breast cancer risk, with the highest risk being found among women with family history of breast cancer (aHR: 1.67), a proliferative benign breast disease (aHR: 3.02) and previous calcifications (aHR: 2.52). The model was well calibrated overall (expected-to-observed ratio ranging from 0.99 at 2 years to 1.02 at 20 years) but slightly overestimated the risk in women with proliferative benign breast disease. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 58.7% to 64.7%, depending of the time horizon selected. Conclusions We developed a risk prediction model to estimate the short- and long-term risk of breast cancer in women eligible for mammography screening using information routinely reported at screening participation. The model could help to guiding individualized screening strategies aimed at improving the risk-benefit balance of mammography screening programs

Objective: We aimed to explore whether the type of mammographic feature prompting a false-positive recall (FPR) during mammography screening influences the risk and timing of breast cancer diagnosis, particularly if assessed with invasive procedures. Study design: We included information on women screened and recalled for further assessment in Spain between 1994 and 2015, with follow-up until 2017, categorizing FPRs by the assessment (noninvasive or invasive) and mammographic feature prompting the recall. Main outcome measures: Breast cancer rates in the first two years after FPR (first period) and after two years (second period). Results: The study included 99,825 women with FPRs. In both periods, the breast cancer rate was higher in the invasive assessment group than in the noninvasive group (first period 12 parts per thousand vs 1.9 parts per thousand, p < 0.001; second period 4.4 parts per thousand vs 3.1 parts per thousand, p < 0.001). During the first period, the invasive assessment group showed diverse breast cancer rates for each type of mammographic feature, with a higher rate for asymmetric density (31.9 parts per thousand). When the second period was compared with the first, the breast cancer rate decreased in the invasive assessment group (from 12 parts per thousand to 4.4 parts per thousand, p < 0.001) and increased in the noninvasive assessment group (from 1.9 parts per thousand to 3.1 parts per thousand, p < 0.001). Conclusion: In the context of mammography screening, the risk of breast cancer diagnosis during the first two years after FPR was particularly high for women undergoing invasive assessment; importantly, the risk was modified by type of mammographic feature prompting the recall. This information could help to individualize follow-up after exclusion of malignancy.

Additional file 2.

Additional file 1.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-msc-10.1177_0969141321993866 for Benefits and harms of breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: A systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer by Carlos Canelo-Aybar, Diogenes S Ferreira, Mónica Ballesteros, Margarita Posso, Nadia Montero, Ivan Solà, Zuleika Saz-Parkinson, Donata Lerda, Paolo G Rossi, Stephen W Duffy, Markus Follmann, Axel Gräwingholt and Pablo Alonso-Coello in Journal of Medical Screening

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes.Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) versus standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma‐related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE.All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualised asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50−0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47−0.73); omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42−0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty, however none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug‐related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6‐12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualised exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45‐0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 ‐1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) ‐0.45 (95% CI ‐0.58 to ‐0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD ‐0.41 (95%CI ‐0.66 to ‐0.15)].

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1, without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1. More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.