RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Studies on COVID-19 infection in pregnancy thus far have largely focused on characterizing maternal and neonatal clinical characteristics. However, another evolving focus is assessing and mitigating the risk of vertical transmission amongst COVID-19-positive mothers. The objective of this review was to summarize the current evidence on the vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in the third trimester and its effects on the neonate. METHODS: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) were searched from January 2020 to May 2020, with continuous surveillance. RESULTS: 18 studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 157 mothers and 160 neonates. The mean age of the pregnant patients was 30.8 years and the mean gestational period was 37 weeks and 1 d. Currently, there is currently no conclusive evidence to suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs. Amongst 81 (69%) neonates who were tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5 (6%) had a positive result. However, amongst these 5 neonates, the earliest test was performed at 16 h after birth, and only 1 neonate was positive when they were later re-tested. However, this neonate initially tested negative at birth, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely hospital-acquired rather than vertically transmitted. 13 (8%) neonates had complications or symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this rapid descriptive review based on early clinical evidence suggest that vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from mother to neonate/newborn did not occur. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal management of neonates born to COVID-19-positive mothers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This is the 24th in the ongoing series of articles describing the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of a body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments and how to move from evidence to recommendations in guidelines. METHODS: Guideline developers and authors of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses use randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) as sources of evidence for questions about health interventions. RCTs with low risk of bias are the most trustworthy source of evidence for estimating relative effects of interventions because of protection against confounding and other biases. However, in several instances, NRSI can still provide valuable information as complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for RCTs. RESULTS: In this article we offer guidance on the decision regarding when to search for and include either or both types of studies in systematic reviews to inform health recommendations. CONCLUSION: This work aims to help methodologists in review teams, technology assessors, guideline panelists, and anyone conducting evidence syntheses using GRADE.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To compare different modalities of renal replacement therapy in critically ill adults with acute kidney injury. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 25 May, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different renal replacement therapy modalities in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. STUDY SELECTION: Ten reviewers (working in pairs) independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION: We performed random-effects frequentist network meta-analyses and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence. The primary analysis was a four-node analysis: continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. The secondary analysis subdivided these four nodes into nine nodes including continuous veno-venous hemofiltration, continuous veno-venous hemodialysis, continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration, continuous arterio-venous hemodiafiltration, intermittent hemodialysis, intermittent hemodialysis with hemofiltration, slow efficiency extended dialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration, and peritoneal dialysis. We set the minimal important difference threshold for mortality as 2.5% (relative difference, 0.04). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty randomized controlled trials (n = 3,774 patients) proved eligible. There may be no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18; low certainty), whereas continuous renal replacement therapy demonstrated a possible increase in mortality compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.33; low certainty) and peritoneal dialysis (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49; low certainty). Continuous renal replacement therapy may increase renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis (relative risk, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.91-1.45; low certainty), whereas both continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis may be worse for renal recovery compared with slow efficiency extended dialysis and peritoneal dialysis (low certainty). Peritoneal dialysis was probably associated with the shortest duration of renal support and length of ICU stay compared with other interventions (low certainty for most comparisons). Slow efficiency extended dialysis may be associated with shortest length of hospital stay (low or moderate certainty for all comparisons) and days of mechanical ventilation (low certainty for all comparisons) compared with other interventions. There was no difference between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis in terms of hypotension (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16; moderate certainty) or other complications of therapy, but an increased risk of hypotension and bleeding was seen with both modalities compared with peritoneal dialysis (low or moderate certainty). Complications of slow efficiency extended dialysis were not sufficiently reported to inform comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest there is no difference in mortality between continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent hemodialysis although continuous renal replacement therapy may increases renal recovery compared with intermittent hemodialysis. Slow efficiency extended dialysis with hemofiltration may be the most effective intervention at reducing mortality. Peritoneal dialysis is associated with good efficacy, and the least number of complications however may not be practical in all settings. Importantly, all conclusions are based on very low to moderate certainty evidence, limited by imprecision. At the very least, ICU clinicians should feel comfortable that the differences between continuous renal replacement therapy, intermittent hemodialysis, slow efficiency extended dialysis, and, where clinically appropriate, peritoneal dialysis are likely small, and any of these modalities is a reasonable option to employ in critically ill patients.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior epidemics of high-mortality human coronaviruses, such as the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV or SARS-1) in 2003, have driven the characterization of compounds that could be possibly active against the currently emerging novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Presently, no approved treatment or prophylaxis is available for COVID-19. We comment on the existing COVID-19 research methodologies in general and the published reporting. Given the media attention and claims of effectiveness, we chose chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, in combination with azithromycin, as an area of COVID-19 research to examine. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases were searched from 2019 to present (April 3rd, 2020) using a mix of keywords such as COVID-19 and chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. We also searched the largest clinical medicine preprint repository, medRxiv.org. RESULTS: We found 6 studies, 3 randomized control trials and 3 observational studies, focusing on chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (with azithromycin). We critically appraised the evidence. CONCLUSION: We found that the COVID-19 research methodology is very poor in the area of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine research. In screening the literature, we observed the same across COVID-19 research in relation to potential treatments. The reporting is very poor and sparse, and patient-important outcomes needed to discern decision-making priorities are not reported. We do understand the barriers to perform rigorous research in health care settings overwhelmed by a novel deadly disease. However, this emergency pandemic situation does not transform flawed methods and data into credible results. The adequately powered, comparative, and robust clinical research that is needed for optimal evidence-informed decision-making remains absent in COVID-19.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We produced, through a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence, a synthesis of the issues of importance (values and preferences) to adult patients with type 1 diabetes regarding treatment with automated insulin delivery systems. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from the inception of each database through September 2018. We included studies examining patient values and preferences for outcomes related to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or artificial pancreas treatment. We compiled structured summaries of the results and assessed the relative importance of each outcome. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluation) and CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approaches provided the structure for the evaluation of the quality of evidence and confidence in the findings. A mixed-methods result-based convergent design provided the structure for integration and presentation of results. RESULTS: We reviewed 1665 unique citations; 19 studies (8 quantitative and 11 qualitative) proved eligible. Glycemic control is the key attribute that drives patients' preference. Reduction of glycemic variability and decreased incidence of hypoglycemia and chronic complications proved of intermediate importance and were ranked similarly to components of treatment burden, including the size and appearance of devices, cost, ease of use, and the embarrassment of public use. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician guidance may play a crucial role in determining patient values and preferences (for instance, patients' priority in glucose control rather than avoiding diabetic complications). Our results provide guidance for clinicians in discussing preferred insulin delivery systems with patients with type 1 diabetes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To describe how systematic review authors report and address categories of participants with potential missing outcome data of trial participants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Methodological survey of systematic reviews reporting a group-level meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included a random sample of 50 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Of these, 25 reported in their methods section a plan to consider at least one of the 10 categories of missing outcome data; 42 reported in their results, data for at least one category of missing data. The most reported category in the methods and results sections was "unexplained loss to follow-up" (n = 34 in methods section and n = 6 in the results section). Only 19 reported a method to handle missing data in their primary analyses, which was most often complete case analysis. Few reviews (n = 9) reported in the methods section conducting sensitivity analysis to judge risk of bias associated with missing outcome data at the level of the meta-analysis; and only five of them presented the results of these analyses in the results section. CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews do not explicitly report sufficient information on categories of trial participants with potential missing outcome data or address missing data in their primary analyses.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Ezetimibe is widely used in combination with statins to reduce low-density lipoprotein. We sought to examine the impact of ezetimibe when added to statins on patient-important outcomes. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched through July, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ezetimibe combined with statins versus statins alone that followed patients for at least 6 months and reported on at least one of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarctions (MI), and non-fatal strokes were included. Pairs of reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We conducted a narrative review with complementary subgroup and sensitivity analyses. IMPROVE-IT study enrolled 93% of all patients enrolled in the 8 included trials. Our analysis of the IMPROVE-IT study results showed that in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, ezetimibe added to statins was associated with i) a likely reduction in non-fatal MI (17 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, moderate certainty in evidence); ii) a possible reduction in non-fatal stroke (6 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, low certainty); iii) no impact on myopathy (moderate certainty); iv) potentially no impact on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death (both moderate certainty); and v) possibly no impact on cancer (low certainty). Addition of ezetimibe to moderate-dose statins is likely to result in 17 fewer MIs and possibly 6 fewer strokes/1000 treated over 6 years but is unlikely to reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death. Patients who place a high value on a small absolute reduction in MI and are not adverse to use of an additional medication over a long duration may opt for ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy. Our analysis revealed no increased specific harms associated with addition of ezetimibe to statins.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

An increasing number of organizations worldwide are using new and improved standards for developing trustworthy clinical guidelines. One of such approaches, developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, offers systematic and transparent guidance in moving from evidence to recommendations. The GRADE strategy concentrates on four factors: the balance between benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, and resource considerations. However, it also considers issues around feasibility, equity, and acceptability of recommendations. GRADE distinguishes two types of recommendations: strong and weak. Strong recommendations reflect a clear preference for one alternative and should apply to all or almost all patients, obviating the need for a careful review of the evidence with each patient. Weak recommendations are appropriate when there is a close balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies, uncertainty regarding the effects of the alternatives, uncertainty or variability in patients' values and preferences, or questionable cost-effectiveness. Weak recommendations usually require accessing the underlying evidence and a shared decision-making approach. Clinicians using GRADE recommendations should understand the meaning of the strength of the recommendation, be able to critically appraise the recommendation, and apply trustworthy recommendations according to their strength.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on how authors conducting meta-analysis should deal with trial participants with missing outcome data. The objectives of this study are to assess in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: (1) which categories of trial participants the systematic review authors consider as having missing participant data (MPD), (2) how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials, (3) whether systematic reviewer authors actually dealt with MPD in their meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes consistently with their reported methods, and (4) the impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses of dichotomous outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a methodological study of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include a group-level meta-analysis of a patient-important dichotomous efficacy outcome, with a statistically significant effect estimate. Teams of two reviewers will determine eligibility and subsequently extract information from each eligible systematic review in duplicate and independently, using standardized, pre-piloted forms. The teams will then use a similar process to extract information from the trials included in the meta-analyses of interest. We will assess first which categories of trial participants the systematic reviewers consider as having MPD. Second, we will assess how trialists reported on participants with missing outcome data in trials. Third, we will compare what systematic reviewers report having done, and what they actually did, in dealing with MPD in their meta-analysis. Fourth, we will conduct imputation studies to assess the effects of different methods of dealing with MPD on the pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses. We will specifically calculate for each method (1) the percentage of systematic reviews that lose statistical significance and (2) the mean change of effect estimates across systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: The impact of different methods of dealing with MPD on pooled effect estimates will help judge the associated risk of bias in systematic reviews. Our findings will inform recommendations regarding what assumptions for MPD should be used to test the robustness of meta-analytical results.

Asunto(s)