Genetic testing for prevention of severe drug-induced skin rash.

BACKGROUND:Drug-induced skin reactions present with a range of clinical symptoms, from mild maculopapular skin rashes to potentially fatal blistering skin rashes - such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) - which may result in death. Milder reactions may be troublesome and lead to low drug compliance. The pathogenesis of these drug reactions is not yet fully understood; however, there is evidence that pretreatment genetic testing may help to predict and prevent these reactions in some cases. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effects of prospective pharmacogenetic screening to reduce drug-associated skin reactions in a patient population. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA:We included RCTs of participants who had prospective pharmacogenetic screening to determine genetic variants associated with hypersensitivity reactions, compared with those who did not have prospective pharmacogenetic screening. We included participants in any setting, who were of any age, gender, and ethnicity, who had been prescribed drugs known to cause delayed type hypersensitivity reactions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess studies for inclusion, two review authors independently screened all of the titles and abstracts of publications identified by the searches. Because there was only one included study, many of the planned data analyses were not applicable to the review. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included study.The review's primary outcomes were the incidence of severe skin rashes with systemic symptoms (such as fever and multiple organ involvement), and long-term effects (such as scarring of eyelids or lung tissue). Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for drug-induced skin reactions, blistering skin reactions (such as SJS, hypersensitivity (HSS) syndrome), and death. MAIN RESULTS:One study, which was a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial included 1956 adult participants (74% men, with a mean age of 42 years) across 265 centres (medical centres, hospitals, outpatient clinics) in 19 countries around the world who were infected with HIV-type 1 and who had not received abacavir previously. The participants, who had a clinical need for treatment with an antiretroviral-drug regimen containing abacavir, were randomly assigned to undergo prospective human leukocyte antigen (HLA) Class I, locus B, allele 57:01 (HLA-B*57:01) screening (prospective-screening group) before this treatment, or to undergo a standard-care approach of abacavir use without prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening (control group). Participants who tested positive for HLA-B*57:01 were not given abacavir; instead, they received antiretroviral therapy that did not include abacavir. The control group did have retrospective HLA-B*57:01 pharmacogenetic testing. The trial duration was six months. Each participant was observed for six weeks. Assessments were performed at the time of study entry, at baseline (day one of abacavir treatment), and at weeks one, two and six. This study was funded by the manufacturer of abacavir, GlaxoSmithKline.The study did not assess any of our primary outcomes, and it measured none of our secondary outcomes in isolation. However, it did assess an outcome of (characteristically severe) hypersensitivity reaction which included (but was not limited to) our secondary outcomes of HSS and SJS/TEN.The study demonstrated that prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening probably reduces the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. The incidence of clinically diagnosed HSS reaction to abacavir was lower in the screening arm (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.67; 1650 participants; moderate-quality evidence), as was immunologically confirmed HSS reaction (RR 0.02, 95% 0.00 to 0.37; 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). A positive result from an epicutaneous patch test performed six to ten weeks after clinical diagnosis provided immunological confirmation.Overall, the study demonstrates a low risk of bias across five out of seven domains. There was a high risk of detection bias because hypersensitivity reactions were diagnosed by the principal investigator at the recruitment site without the use of predefined clinical criteria. Although there was also high risk of attrition bias due to excluding participants with incomplete follow-up from analyses, the authors did undertake a series of sensitivity analyses based on the intention-to-treat population, which demonstrated consistent results with the primary analysis. We rated the study quality as moderate-quality using GRADE criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Prospective screening for HLA-B*57:01 probably reduces severe hypersensitivity skin reactions to abacavir in patients positive for HIV-type 1. However, these results are only based on one study, which was at high risk of attrition and detection bias.Our primary outcomes (incidence of severe skin rashes with systemic symptoms, and long-term effects) were not assessed by the trial, and only one of the review's secondary outcomes was measured (hypersensitivity reaction); thus, we found no evidence relating to hospitalisation, death, or long-term conditions resulting from drug injury.We found no eligible evidence on genetic testing for severe drug-induced skin rash in relation to different drugs and classes of drugs. Further clinical trials based on other drugs, and in different patient populations, would be useful for advising policy changes for improving the prevention of adverse skin reactions to drug treatments

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer-related pain in children and adolescents

Background Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for persisting pain in children acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences. We designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions. As one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Specific mortality and morbidity data relating to children are not currently identified. All childhood cancer rates are on the rise; for example, in the USA approximately 10,380 children aged under 15 years were expected to be diagnosed with cancer by the end of 2016. However, with survival rates also increasing, over 80% of paediatric cancer patients are expected to survive for five years or more, thus identifying the need to address pain management in this population. Cancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammatory properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. NSAIDs are currently licensed for use in western countries, however not approved for infants aged under three months. Primary adverse effects include gastrointestinal issues and possible renal impairment with long term use. Other adverse effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged from birth and 17 years, in any setting. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of StudiesOnline, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 21 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. Selection criteria Randomised, double-blind trials of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing NSAIDs with placebo or an active comparator. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review (very low quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome. Authors' conclusions There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. This means that no reliance or conclusions can be made about efficacy or harm in the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

Background Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important. We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents. As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most widely used analgesics in both adults and children. The recommended dosage in the UK, Europe, Australia, and the USA for children and adolescents is generally 10 to 15 mg/kg every four to six hours, with specific age ranges from 60 mg (6 to 12 months old) up to 500 to 1000 mg (over 12 years old). Paracetamol is the only recommended analgesic for children under 3 months of age. Paracetamol has been proven to be safe in appropriate and controlled dosages, however potential adverse effects of paracetamol if overdosed or overused in children include liver and kidney failure. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of StudiesOnline, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing paracetamol with placebo or an active comparator. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat, using standard methods where data were available. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a ' Summary of findings' table. Main results No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome. Authors' conclusions There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of paracetamol to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We know from adult randomised controlled trials that paracetamol, can be effective, in certain doses, and in certain pain conditions (not always chronic). This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic noncancer pain in children and adolescents

PUTTING THE PASS IN CLASS: IN-CLASS PEER MENTORING ON CAMPUS AND ONLINE

We analyse the introduction of peer mentors into classrooms to understand how in-class mentoring supports students’ learning in first-year courses. Peer mentors are high-achieving students who have completed the same course previously, and are hired and trained by the university to facilitate Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS). PASS sessions give students the opportunity to deepen their understanding through revision and active learning and are typically held outside of class time. In contrast, our trial embedded peer mentors into the classes for Professional Scientific Thinking, a large (~250 students) workshop-based course at the University of Newcastle. Analysis of Blackboard analytics, student responses to Brookfield’s Critical Incident Questionnaire and peer mentors’ journals found that during face-to-face workshops, peer mentors role-modelled ideal student behaviour (e.g. asking questions), rather than act as additional teachers. This helped students new to university to better understand how to interact and learn effectively in class. Moving classes online mid-semester reshaped mentors’ roles, including through the technical aspects of their work and their engagement with students – adaptations that were essential for supporting students to also adapt effectively to changed learning circumstances. This study highlights the benefits of embedding student mentors in classrooms, both on campus and online

Putting the PASS in Class: Peer Mentors’ Identities in Science Workshops on Campus and Online

In this paper, we analyse the introduction of peer mentors into timetabled classes to understand how in-class mentoring supports students’ learning. The peer mentors in this study are high-achieving students who previously completed the same course and who were hired and trained to facilitate Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS). PASS gives students the opportunity to deepen their understanding through revision and active learning and are typically held outside of class time. In contrast, our trial embedded peer mentors into classes for a large (~250 students) first-year workshop-based course. We employed a participatory action research methodology to facilitate the peer mentors’ co-creation of the research process. Data sources include peer mentors’ journal entries, student cohort data, and a focus group with teaching staff. We found that during face-to-face workshops, peer mentors role-modelled ideal student behaviour (e.g., asking questions) rather than acting as additional teachers, and this helped students to better understand how to interact effectively in class. The identity of embedded peer mentors is neither that of teachers nor of students, and it instead spans aspects of both as described using a three-part schema comprising (i) identity, (ii) associated roles, and (iii) associated practices. As we moved classes online mid-semester in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mentors’ identities remained stable, but mentors adjusted their associated roles and practices, including through the technical aspects of their engagement with students. This study highlights the benefits of embedding mentors in classrooms on campus and online

KDIGO 2020 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease.

n/

Do health checks for adults with intellectual disability reduce emergency hospital admissions? Evaluation of a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: Annual health checks for adults with intellectual disability (ID) have been incentivised by National Health Service (NHS) England since 2009, but it is unclear what impact they have had on important health outcomes such as emergency hospitalisation. METHODS: An evaluation of a 'natural experiment', incorporating practice and individual-level designs, to assess the effectiveness of health checks for adults with ID in reducing emergency hospital admissions using a large English primary care database. For practices, changes in admission rates for adults with ID between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 were compared in 126 fully participating versus 68 non-participating practices. For individuals, changes in admission rates before and after the first health check for 7487 adults with ID were compared with 46 408 age-sex-practice matched controls. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) comparing changes in admission rates are presented for: all emergency, preventable emergency (for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs)) and elective emergency. RESULTS: Practices with high health check participation showed no change in emergency admission rate among patients with ID over time compared with non-participating practices (IRR=0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19), but emergency admissions for ACSCs did fall (IRR=0.74, 0.58 to 0.95). Among individuals with ID, health checks had no effect on overall emergency admissions compared with controls (IRR=0.96, 0.87 to 1.07), although there was a relative reduction in emergency admissions for ACSCs (IRR=0.82, 0.69 to 0.99). Elective admissions showed no change with health checks in either analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Annual health checks in primary care for adults with ID did not alter overall emergency admissions, but they appeared influential in reducing preventable emergency admissions

Hydromorphone for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND Opioid drugs, including hydromorphone, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for hydromorphone, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.This review is part of an update of a previous review, Hydromorphone for acute and chronic pain that was withdrawn in 2013 because it needed updating and splitting to be more specific for different pain conditions. This review focuses only on neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), via the CRSO; MEDLINE via Ovid; and EMBASE via Ovid from inception to 17 November 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing hydromorphone (at any dose, by any route of administration, or in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS Searches identified seven publications relating to four studies. We excluded three studies. One post hoc (secondary) analysis of a study published in four reports assessed the efficacy of hydromorphone in neuropathic pain, satisfied our inclusion criteria, and was included in the review. The single included study had an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal design with 94 participants who were successfully switched from oral morphine to oral hydromorphone extended release (about 60% of those enrolled). These participants were then randomised to continuing hydromorphone for 12 weeks or tapering down the hydromorphone dose to placebo. The methodological quality of the study was generally good, but we judged the risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as unclear, and for study size as high.Since we identified only one study for inclusion, we were unable to carry out any analyses. The included study did not report any of our prespecified primary outcomes, which relate to the number of participants achieving moderate or substantial levels of pain relief. It did report a slightly larger increase in average pain intensity for placebo in the randomised withdrawal phase than for continuing with hydromorphone. It also reported the number of participants who withdrew due to lack of efficacy in the randomised withdrawal phase, which may be an indicator of efficacy. However, in addition to using an enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study design, there was an unusual choice of imputation methods for withdrawals (about 50% of participants); the evidence was of very low quality and inadequate to make a judgement on efficacy. Adverse events occurred in about half of participants with hydromorphone, the most common being constipation and nausea. A similar proportion of participants experienced adverse events with placebo, the most common being opioid withdrawal syndrome (very low quality evidence). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity. One in eight participants withdrew while taking hydromorphone during the conversion and titration phase, despite participants being opioid-tolerant (very low quality evidence).We downgraded the quality of the evidence to very low because there was only one study with few participants, it did not report clinically useful efficacy outcomes, and it was a post hoc analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that hydromorphone has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition