Search

Versión preprint diponible en BioRxiv (doi: 10.1101/2020.02.07.937862) http://hdl.handle.net/10261/212994, The present outbreak of a coronavirus-associated acute respiratory disease called coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is the third documented spillover of an animal coronavirus to humans in only two decades that has resulted in a major epidemic. The Coronaviridae Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which is responsible for developing the classification of viruses and taxon nomenclature of the family Coronaviridae, has assessed the placement of the human pathogen, tentatively named 2019-nCoV, within the Coronaviridae. Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG recognizes this virus as forming a sister clade to the prototype human and bat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, and designates it as SARS-CoV-2. In order to facilitate communication, the CSG proposes to use the following naming convention for individual isolates: SARS-CoV-2/host/location/isolate/date. While the full spectrum of clinical manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections in humans remains to be determined, the independent zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 highlights the need for studying viruses at the species level to complement research focused on individual pathogenic viruses of immediate significance. This will improve our understanding of virus–host interactions in an ever-changing environment and enhance our preparedness for future outbreaks., Work on DEmARC advancement and coronavirus and nidovirus taxonomies was supported by the EU Horizon 2020 EVAg 653316 project and the LUMC MoBiLe program (to A.E.G.), and on coronavirus and nidovirus taxonomies by a Mercator Fellowship by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (to A.E.G.) in the context of the SFB1021 (A01 to J.Z.).

BACKGROUND Medical nutrition therapy (MNT) has an integral role in overall diabetes management. During adolescence, consideration of physiological and psychosocial changes is essential for implementing an optimal diabetes treatment. OBJECTIVES Our aim was to identify, summarize, and interpret the published literature about MNT in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. METHODS The Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1959 to December 2021. The inclusion criteria were interventional studies with MNT in adolescents with type 1 diabetes with a disease duration over 1 year, including the following outcomes: dietary intake and daily eating patterns (assessed with validated tools, two or more 24 h dietary recall or 3-day dietary records), the diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES), glycemic control, lipid profile and body mass index (BMI). The exclusion criteria were studies without a control group (except for pre-post studies), the lack of randomization and those studies that assessed only a single nutrient, food or meal consumption, as well as reviews, and in-vitro/in-vivo studies. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. A narrative synthesis was performed to present the results. The quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADE guidance. RESULTS From a total of 5377 records, 12 intervention studies (9 RCT and 3 pre-post intervention studies) were included. The data were assessed in order to perform a meta-analysis; however, the studies were too heterogeneous. The studies showed conflicting results about the effectiveness of MNT on dietary pattern, DSMES, glycemic control, lipid profile and BMI. CONCLUSIONS Clinical research studies on the effectiveness of MNT in adolescents with type 1 diabetes are scarce. The limited number of studies with a high risk of bias precludes establishing robust conclusions on this issue. Further research is warranted.

Purpose To assess the methodological quality of all relevant and recent European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers, and to synthesise their recommendations on the use of chemotherapy. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, guidelines repositories, and other sources from 2010 onwards. We appraised quality using AGREE-II and AGREE-REX. Results 11 CPGs were included (five high, five low, and one moderate quality). Most guidelines showed deficiencies in the domain "applicability", with only three scoring above 60%. Nine did not report having sought the views and preferences of the target population. The lowest scores for AGREE-REX were item Values and Preferences of Target Users (1.6; SD 1.3), and item Values and Preferences of Policy/Decision-Makers (1.8; SD 1.7). The domain Clinical Applicability got the highest score and the domain Implementability got the lowest. Conclusions An urgent area of research is how to develop credible and implementable recommendations on the clinical use of CT for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancer. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021236753).

Background Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. Conclusions In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Purpose To conduct a systematic review to analyse the performance of the sentinel lymph-node biopsy (SLNB) in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis and node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy, compared to axillary lymph-node dissection. Methods The more relevant databases were searched. Main outcomes were false-negative rate (FNR), sentinel lymph-node identification rate (SLNIR), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. We conducted meta-analyses when appropriate. Results Twenty studies were included. The pooled FNR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), the pooled SLNIR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), NPV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87), and summary accuracy was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94). SLNB performed better when more than one node was removed and double mapping was used. Conclusions SLNB can be performed in women with a node-negative tumour after neoadjuvant therapy. It has a better performance when used with previous marking of the affected node and with double tracer.

Background Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage. Main results We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any diEerence between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the eEect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone

Background: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) have a high risk of dying in the short or medium-term. This overview aimed to assess the evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOT) versus supportive care for advanced PC. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in MEDLINE, Embase, The CochraneLibrary, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by another one. We evaluated the overlap of primary studies, performed a de novo meta-analysis, and assessed the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), functional status (FS), and toxicity. Results: We identified three SRs that assessed SOT versus supportive care in patients with advanced PC. All SRs had critically low methodological quality. At 12 months, OS improved with chemotherapy, radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, but the certainty of the evidence supporting these findings is very low. The evidence on chemotherapy is very uncertain about its effects on QoL; it suggests a slight increase in toxicity and little to no difference in FS. The evidence on immunotherapy is very uncertain about its effects in toxicity. Conclusions: The identified evidence is very uncertain about the benefits of oncological treatments on OS and QoL in patients with advanced PC with a high risk of dying in the short or medium-term, so its use should be proposed only to selected patients. Further studies that include a thorough assessment of patient-centred outcomes are needed. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background: Esophageal and gastric cancers are a significant public health problem worldwide, with most patients presenting with advanced-stage disease and, consequently, poor prognosis. Systemic oncological treatments (SOT) have been widely used over more conservative approaches, such as supportive care. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in this scenario is not sufficiently clear. This paper provides an overview of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of SOT compared with the best supportive care (BSC) or placebo in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers in an end-of-life context. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO for eligible systematic reviews (SRs) published from 2008 onwards. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functional status, and toxicity. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We evaluated the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the overlap of primary studies (corrected covered area, CCA). Also, we performed a de novo meta-analysis with data reported for each primary study when it was possible. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results: We identified 16 SRs (19 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. Most reviews had a critically low methodological quality, and there was a very high overlap of primary studies. It is uncertain whether SOT improves OS and PFS over more conservative approaches due to the very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of SOT for advanced esophageal or gastric cancers. High-quality SRs and further randomized clinical trials that include a thorough assessment of patient-centered outcomes are needed.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify and analyze the presence and type of self-acknowledged limitations (SALs) in a sample of manual therapy (MT) randomized controlled trials. Study Design and Setting: We randomly selected 120 MT trials. We extracted data related to SALs from the original reports and classified them into 12 categories. After data extraction, specific limitations within each category were identified. A descriptive analysis was performed using frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables. Results: The number of SALs per trial article ranged from 0 to 8, and more than two-thirds of trials acknowledged at least two different limitations. Despite its small proportion, 9% of trials did not report SALs. The most common limitation declared, in almost half of our sample, related to sample size (47.5%) followed by limitations related to study length and follow-up (33.3%) and inadequate controls (32.5%). Conclusion: Our results indicate that at least two different limitations are consistently acknowledged in MT trial reports, the most common being those related to sample size, study length, follow-up, and inadequate controls. Analysis of the reasons behind the SALs gives some insights about the main difficulties in conducting research in this field and may help develop strategies to improve future research. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objectives Mammography screening is generally accepted in women aged 50-69, but the balance between benefits and harms remains controversial in other age groups. This study systematically reviews these effects to inform the European Breast Cancer Guidelines. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of observational studies in the absence of RCTs comparing invitation to mammography screening to no invitation in women at average breast cancer (BC) risk. We extracted data for mortality, BC stage, mastectomy rate, chemotherapy provision, overdiagnosis and false-positive-related adverse effects. We performed a pooled analysis of relative risks, applying an inverse-variance random-effects model for three age groups (

Background Many people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia. Psychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor accessto transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions. Objectives To assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia. Search methods We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLIN E, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials. Selection criteria We included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy. Our primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia. Data collection and analysis Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates. Main results We included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants). We downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty. In the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53). In the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information atone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20). Authors' conc

Background Patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening can determine adherence to screening programs. An evaluation of validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring experience or satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening does not exist. Our objective was to identify and critically appraise validated questionnaires for measuring patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening. Methods We conducted a systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. We conducted searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and BiblioPRO and assessed the methodological quality of studies and measurement properties of questionnaires according to the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019118527. Results We included 80 studies that used 75 questionnaires, of which only 5 were validated. Four questionnaires measured satisfaction with endoscopy: two in the context of colorectal cancer screening (for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) and two for non-screening endoscopy. One questionnaire measured satisfaction with bowel preparation. The methodological quality of studies was variable. The questionnaires with evidence for sufficient content validity and internal consistency were: the CSSQP questionnaire, which measures safety and satisfaction with screening colonoscopy, and the Post-Procedure questionnaire which measures satisfaction with non-screening endoscopic procedures. Conclusions This systematic review shows that a minority of existing PROMs for measuring patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening are validated. We identified two questionnaires with high potential for further use (CSSQP and the Post-Procedure questionnaire).

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of biologicals for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) compared with the standard of care. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CRSwNP-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. RCTs evaluated (dupilumab-2, omalizumab-4, mepolizumab-2, and reslizumab-1) included 1236 adults, with follow-up of 20-64 weeks. Dupilumab reduces the need for surgery (NFS) or oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.20-0.39, moderate certainty) and improves with high certainty smell evaluated with UPSIT score (mean difference (MD) +10.54; 95% CI +9.24 to +11.84) and quality of life (QoL) evaluated with SNOT-22 (MD -19.14; 95% CI -22.80 to -15.47), with fewer treatment-related adverse events (TAEs) (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.02, moderate certainty). Omalizumab reduces NFS (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.78-0.92, high certainty), decreases OCS use (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.10-1.38, moderate certainty), and improves high certainty smell (MD +3.84; 95% CI +3.64 to +4.04) and QoL (MD -15.65; 95% CI -16.16 to -15.13), with increased TAE (RR 1.73; 95% CI 0.60-5.03, moderate certainty). There is low certainty for mepolizumab reducing NFS (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.94) and improving QoL (MD -13.3; 95% CI -23.93 to -2.67) and smell (MD +0.7; 95% CI -0.48 to +1.88), with increased TAEs (RR 1.64; 95% CI 0.41-6.50). The evidence for reslizumab is very uncertain.

Objectives To assess the efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, administered without metformin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients. Methods A systematic review was performed according to Cochrane's methodological standards. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on adult type 2 diabetes patients, assessing the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1-RAs compared to other glucose-lowering drugs and/or RCTs that presented data of a subgroup of type 2 diabetes patients without metformin use at baseline. The main outcome was the reduction of the risk of any major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) reported individually or as a composite outcome. Results Five RCTs including 50,725 type 2 diabetes patients, of whom 10,013 had not received metformin, were included in this meta-analysis. Three of these studies assessed the efficacy of GLP1-RAs and two of SGLT2 inhibitors. In patients without metformin at baseline, GLP1-RAs in comparison with placebo reduced the risk of MACE significantly by 20% (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71-0.89). SGLT2 inhibitors also significantly reduced the risk of MACE by 32% (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.81). Conclusions SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1-RAs provided without metformin at baseline may reduce the risk of MACE in comparison with placebo in type 2 diabetes patients at increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Sublingual apomorphine could be an option in patients with erectile dysfunction who cannot take phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (e.g., using nitrates). We have completed a systematic review to evaluate the effects of sublingual apomorphine comparing with placebo for treating erectile dysfunction. The evidence searching process finished on 9 January 2019. We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment length varied from 4 to 8 weeks and doses ranged from 2 to 6 mg. The percent of successful sexual intercourse attempts per ingested dose of apomorphine was evaluated in eight studies. All the studies found that apomorphine was better than placebo (6-27% more successful intercourse attempts than with placebo), but differences were not statistically significant in one study done in patients previously treated with radical prostatectomy. Regarding erectile function scores, three studies reported higher improvement on the erectile function scores for apomorphine. Differences with placebo were not clinically relevant in another two studies, one in which only diabetic patients were included and one in which only patients with radical prostatectomy were involved. Discontinuation of treatment due to adverse events was higher for apomorphine, particularly for higher doses. Available evidence suggests that sublingual apomorphine is more effective than placebo, except for patients previously treated with radical prostatectomy, and is generally well tolerated at doses of 2 or 3 mg. Nowadays, sublingual apomorphine is the only licensed oral drug for erectile dysfunction not absolutely contraindicated with nitrates use, and more RCTs should be performed to evaluate its effects and safety for treating ED.

Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate a selection of major reporting aspects in manual therapy (MT) trials, before and after the publication of the CONSORT extension for nonpharmacological trials (CONSORTnpt) Study Design and Setting: We randomly selected 100 MT trials published between 2000 and 2015 and divided them into a preCONSORTnpt (n 5 50) and a post-CONSORTnpt (n 5 50) group. We extracted data on relevant issues of internal validity, reliability, and description of interventions. Two authors extracted data independently. Percentages were used for descriptive analyses, and Fisher's exact test and the chi-square test were used for group comparisons. Results: Six different types of MT interventions with up to 20 controls were analyzed. The most common populations/conditions studied were healthy subjects and subjects with lower back or neck pain. Over 70% of studies included multi-session interventions, and 42% of studies reported long-term followup. The only significant differences between groups were the inclusion of a flowchart diagram, the estimated effect size, precision descriptions, and the description of intervention procedures. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that trials in MT show poor reporting even after the availability of standardized guidelines. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Controversial results exist on mid-term effects of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy on hypertension remission. The aim of the present systematic review was to study 5-year hypertension remission after both procedures. One-year hypertension remission and SBP and DBP pressure change at 1 and 5 years after both surgical techniques were also evaluated. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Thirty-two articles were included (six randomized controlled trials, 18 cohort and eight case-control studies). The proportion of patients with hypertension remission was greater for those treated with gastric bypass compared with sleeve gastrectomy at 5 years (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.07-1.48) and 1 year (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.06-1.21). Gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy did not differ in terms of SBP or DBP change. Patients treated with gastric bypass present a higher hypertension remission rate at 1 and 5 years.