Background Allergic diseases are considered a health burden because of their high and constantly increasing prevalence, high direct and indirect costs, and undesirable effects on quality of life. ...Probiotics have been suggested as an intervention to prevent allergic diseases. Objective We sought to synthesize the evidence supporting use of probiotics for the prevention of allergies and inform World Allergy Organization guidelines on probiotic use. Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized trials assessing the effects of any probiotic administered to pregnant women, breast-feeding mothers, and/or infants. Results Of 2403 articles published until December 2014 identified in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, 29 studies fulfilled a priori specified inclusion criteria for the analyses. Probiotics reduced the risk of eczema when used by women during the last trimester of pregnancy (relative risk RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84), when used by breast-feeding mothers (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69), or when given to infants (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94). Evidence did not support an effect on other allergies, nutrition status, or incidence of adverse effects. The certainty in the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach is low or very low because of the risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision of results, and indirectness of available research. Conclusion Probiotics used by pregnant women or breast-feeding mothers and/or given to infants reduced the risk of eczema in infants; however, the certainty in the evidence is low. No effect was observed for the prevention of other allergic conditions.
The objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that may be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.
We conducted highly sensitive ...searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase. The searches covered the period from the inception date of each database until April 28, 2020. No study design, publication status or language restriction were applied.
We included studies that assessed patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infectious disease and examined one or more prognostic factors for mortality or disease severity. Reviewers working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome.
We included 207 studies and found high or moderate certainty that the following 49 variables provide valuable prognostic information on mortality and/or severe disease in patients with COVID-19 infectious disease: Demographic factors (age, male sex, smoking), patient history factors (comorbidities, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, cardiac arrhythmia, arterial hypertension, diabetes, dementia, cancer and dyslipidemia), physical examination factors (respiratory failure, low blood pressure, hypoxemia, tachycardia, dyspnea, anorexia, tachypnea, haemoptysis, abdominal pain, fatigue, fever and myalgia or arthralgia), laboratory factors (high blood procalcitonin, myocardial injury markers, high blood White Blood Cell count (WBC), high blood lactate, low blood platelet count, plasma creatinine increase, high blood D-dimer, high blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), high blood C-reactive protein (CRP), decrease in lymphocyte count, high blood aspartate aminotransferase (AST), decrease in blood albumin, high blood interleukin-6 (IL-6), high blood neutrophil count, high blood B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN), high blood creatine kinase (CK), high blood bilirubin and high erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)), radiological factors (consolidative infiltrate and pleural effusion) and high SOFA score (sequential organ failure assessment score).
Identified prognostic factors can help clinicians and policy makers in tailoring management strategies for patients with COVID-19 infectious disease while researchers can utilise our findings to develop multivariable prognostic models that could eventually facilitate decision-making and improve patient important outcomes.
Prospero registration number: CRD42020178802. Protocol available at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20056598v1.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
AbstractUpdatesThis is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates ...to this guideline.Clinical questionWhat is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19?ContextThe evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics.What is new?The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19.About this guidelineThis living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact.Future recommendationsRecommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.
AbstractObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a ...comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low.ConclusionCorticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.
PURPOSE OF REVIEWCat allergy can manifest as allergic rhinitis, conjunctivitis and/or asthma. With widespread cat ownership and exposure, cat allergy has emerged as a major cause of morbidity. Cat ...allergen immunotherapy is a potential disease modifying treatment for patients with cat allergy. We examine evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of cat allergen immunotherapy and consider the clinical contexts in which it should be prescribed.
RECENT FINDINGSThe European Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis and asthma along with the accompanying guidelines on allergic rhinitis were used as primary sources of evidence. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are most common routes of administration for allergen immunotherapy (AIT). A limited number of high-quality studies related to cat dander have shown mixed results in improvements in ocular and nasal symptoms, asthma symptoms, peak expiratory flow rate and medication use scores with subcutaneous immunotherapy. Two studies examining cat dander and cat-related allergy response with sublingual immunotherapy have shown mixed results in terms of symptomatic response. One randomized trial examining intralymphatic immunotherapy has shown a positive symptom response and a favourable safety profile. Although studies have reported mixed results regarding safety of SCIT, adverse events have been reported more commonly with SCIT than SLIT.
SUMMARYThere is a limited body of high-quality evidence on the effectiveness and safety of cat AIT and no high-quality data on its cost-effectiveness. The available evidence on effectiveness is mixed based on studying a limited array of immunological, physiological and patient-reported outcome measures. Based on this evidence and extrapolating on the wider evidence base in AIT, it is likely that some patients may benefit from this modality of treatment, particularly those with moderate-to-severe disease who are inadequately controlled on allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy and those who are monosensitized to Felix Domesticus 1. Further evidence is, however, required from larger trials before more definitive advice can be offered.
Abstract Objective To collect and classify reported reasons for recruitment failure in discontinued randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess reporting quality. Methods We systematically ...searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (2010-2014) and a previous cohort of RCTs for published RCTs reporting trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Teams of two investigators selected eligible RCTs working independently and extracted information using standardized forms. We used an iterative approach to classify reasons for poor recruitment. Results We included 172 RCTs discontinued due to poor recruitment (including 26 conference abstracts and 63 industry-funded RCTs). Of those, 131 (76%) reported one or more reasons for discontinuation due to poor recruitment. We identified 28 different reasons for recruitment failure; most frequently mentioned were overestimation of prevalence of eligible participants and prejudiced views of recruiters and participants on trial interventions. Few RCTs reported relevant details about the recruitment process such as how eligible participants were identified, the number of patients assessed for eligibility, and who actually recruited participants. Conclusion Our classification could serve as a checklist to assist investigators in the planning of RCTs. Most reasons for recruitment failure seem preventable with a pilot study that applies the planned informed consent procedure.
Background: Clinicians confront numerous practical issues in optimizing the use of anticoagulants to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE).
Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American ...Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions about the use of anticoagulants in the management of VTE. These guidelines assume the choice of anticoagulant has already been made.
Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.
Results: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations and 2 good practice statements to optimize management of patients receiving anticoagulants.
Conclusions: Strong recommendations included using patient self-management of international normalized ratio (INR) with home point-of-care INR monitoring for vitamin K antagonist therapy and against using periprocedural low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging therapy. Conditional recommendations included basing treatment dosing of LMWH on actual body weight, not using anti–factor Xa monitoring to guide LMWH dosing, using specialized anticoagulation management services, and resuming anticoagulation after episodes of life-threatening bleeding.
Background
To date, a systematic review of the evidence regarding the association between vitamin D and allergic diseases development has not yet been undertaken.
Objective
To review the efficacy and ...safety of vitamin D supplementation when compared to no supplementation in pregnant women, breastfeeding women, infants, and children for the prevention of allergies.
Methods
Three databases were searched through January 30, 2016, including randomized (RCT) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the certainty in the body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Results
Among the 1932 articles identified, one RCT and four NRS were eligible. Very low certainty in the body of evidence across examined studies suggests that vitamin D supplementation for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants may not decrease the risk of developing allergic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (in pregnant women), allergic rhinitis (in pregnant women and infants), asthma and/or wheezing (in pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants), or food allergies (in pregnant women). We found no studies of primary prevention of allergic diseases in children.
Conclusion
Limited information is available addressing primary prevention of allergic diseases after vitamin D supplementation, and its potential impact remains uncertain.
Purpose
We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence ...regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.
Source
Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv.
Review 1
: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Review 2:
we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.
Principal findings
No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients.
Review 1:
12 RCTs (
n
= 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk RR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively).
Review 2
: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density.
Conclusions
High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.
Background
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the ...development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost‐effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
Methods
We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in‐progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost‐effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses.
Results
We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −0.63, −0.42), medication (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.49, −0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD −0.49, 95% CI −0.69, −0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post‐discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.
Conclusions
AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.
PDF
