Pharmacological interventions for painful sickle cell vaso-occlusive crises in adults.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of inherited disorders of haemoglobin (Hb) structure in a person who has inherited two mutant globin genes (one from each parent), at least one of which is always the sickle mutation. It is estimated that between 5% and 7% of the world\u27s population are carriers of the mutant Hb gene, and SCD is the most commonly inherited blood disorder. SCD is characterized by distorted sickle-shaped red blood cells. Manifestations of the disease are attributed to either haemolysis (premature red cell destruction) or vaso-occlusion (obstruction of blood flow, the most common manifestation). Shortened lifespans are attributable to serious comorbidities associated with the disease, including renal failure, acute cholecystitis, pulmonary hypertension, aplastic crisis, pulmonary embolus, stroke, acute chest syndrome, and sepsis. Vaso-occlusion can lead to an acute, painful crisis (sickle cell crisis, vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) or vaso-occlusive episode). Pain is most often reported in the joints, extremities, back or chest, but it can occur anywhere and can last for several days or weeks. The bone and muscle pain experienced during a sickle cell crisis is both acute and recurrent. Key pharmacological treatments for VOC include opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and combinations of drugs. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as relaxation, hypnosis, heat, ice and acupuncture, have been used in conjunction to rehydrating the patient and reduce the sickling process. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pharmacological interventions to treat acute painful sickle cell vaso-occlusive crises in adults, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and LILACS, from inception to September 2019. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled, double-blind trials of pharmacological interventions, of any dose and by any route, compared to placebo or any active comparator, for the treatment (not prevention) of painful sickle cell VOC in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief of 50%, or 30%, or greater; Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) very much improved, or much or very much improved. Our secondary outcomes included adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We assessed GRADE and created three \u27Summary of findings\u27 tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with data for 638 VOC events and 594 participants aged 17 to 42 years with SCD presenting to a hospital emergency department in a painful VOC. Three studies investigated a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) compared to placebo. One study compared an opioid with a placebo, two studies compared an opioid with an active comparator, two studies compared an anticoagulant with a placebo, and one study compared a combination of three drugs with a combination of four drugs. Risk of bias across the nine studies varied. Studies were primarily at an unclear risk of selection, performance, and detection bias. Studies were primarily at a high risk of bias for size with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm; two studies had 50 to 199 participants per treatment arm (unclear risk). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) compared with placebo No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30% or greater. The efficacy was uncertain regarding PGIC very much improved, and PGIC much or very much improved (no difference; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-quality evidence). Very low-quality, uncertain results suggested similar rates of adverse events across both the NSAIDs group (16/45 adverse events, 1/56 serious adverse events, and 1/56 withdrawal due to adverse events) and the placebo group (19/45 adverse events, 2/56 serious adverse events, and 1/56 withdrawal due to adverse events). Opioids compared with placebo No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30%, PGIC, or adverse events (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events). Opioids compared with active comparator No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30% or greater. The results were uncertain regarding PGIC very much improved (33% of the opioids group versus 19% of the placebo group). No data were reported regarding PGIC much or very much improved. Very low-quality, uncertain results suggested similar rates of adverse events across both the opioids group (9/66 adverse events, and 0/66 serious adverse events) and the placebo group (7/64 adverse events, 0/66 serious adverse events). No data were reported regarding withdrawal due to adverse events. Quality of the evidence We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low-quality because there are too few data to have confidence in results (e.g. too few participants per treatment arm). Where no data were reported for an outcome, we had no evidence to support or refute (quality of the evidence is unknown). AUTHORS\u27 CONCLUSIONS: This review identified only nine studies, with insufficient data for all pharmacological interventions for analysis. The available evidence is very uncertain regarding the efficacy or harm from pharmacological interventions used to treat pain related to sickle cell VOC in adults. This area could benefit most from more high quality, certain evidence, as well as the establishment of suitable registries which record interventions and outcomes for this group of people

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

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

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

Household acquisition and transmission of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) -producing Enterobacteriaceae after hospital discharge of ESBL-positive index patients

MODERN WP2 study group: Caroline Brossier, Elodie von Dach, Gesuele Renzi, Jacques Schrenzel, Stefanie Bunk, Siri Goepel, Florian Hölzl, Michael Eib, Ingo B.Autenrieth, Álvaro Pascual, Xavier Bertrand, Jelle Scharringa, Patrick Musicha.[Objectives] This study aimed to determine rates and risk factors of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) acquisition and transmission within households after hospital discharge of an ESBL-PE-positive index patient.[Methods] Two-year prospective cohort study in five European cities. Patients colonized with ESBL-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-Ec) or Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-Kp), and their household contacts were followed up for 4 months after hospital discharge of the index case. At each follow up, participants provided a faecal sample and personal information. ESBL-PE whole-genome sequences were compared using pairwise single nucleotide polymorphism-based analysis.[Results] We enrolled 71 index patients carrying ESBL-Ec (n = 45), ESBL-Kp (n = 20) or both (n = 6), and 102 household contacts. The incidence of any ESBL-PE acquisition among household members initially free of ESBL-PE was 1.9/100 participant-weeks at risk. Nineteen clonally related household transmissions occurred (case to contact: 13; contact to case: 6), with an overall rate of 1.18 transmissions/100 participant-weeks at risk. Most of the acquisition and transmission events occurred within the first 2 months after discharge. The rate of ESBL-Kp household transmission (1.16/100 participant-weeks) was higher than of ESBL-Ec (0.93/100 participant-weeks), whereas more acquisitions were noted for ESBL-Ec (1.06/100 participant-weeks) compared with ESBL-Kp (0.65/100 participant-weeks). Providing assistance for urinary and faecal excretion to the index case by household members increased the risk of ESBL-PE transmission (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.3; 95% CI 1.3–14.1).[Conclusions] ESBL-PE cases discharged from the hospital are an important source of ESBL-PE transmission within households. Most acquisition and transmission events occurred during the first 2 months after hospital discharge and were causally related to care activities at home, highlighting the importance of hygiene measures in community settings.[Clinical study registration] German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS-ID: DRKS00013250.This study was part of a Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance collaborative research project, under the 2016 Joint Call framework (Transnational Research Projects on the Transmission Dynamics of Antibacterial Resistance). It received funding from the following national research agencies: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (grant no. AC16/00076), Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (grant no. AC681055), Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 40AR40-173608), German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01KI1830) and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant no. ANR-16-JPEC-0007-03). As part of a separate research project, Marlieke de Kraker has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreement nos 115523, 115620 and 115737 (Combatting Bacterial Resistance in Europe projects (COMBACTE)), resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007±2013) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and associations companies' in-kind contribution. Also, Elena Salamanca, Mercedes Delgado and Jesús Rodríguez-Baño received support for research from by the Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013-2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001), co-financed by the European Development Regional Fund ‘A way to achieve Europe’, Operative Programme Intelligence Growth 2014-2020.Peer reviewe

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials

Clinical outcomes and response to treatment of patients receiving topical treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: a prospective cohort study

Background: pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is an uncommon dermatosis with a limited evidence base for treatment. Objective: to estimate the effectiveness of topical therapies in the treatment of PG. Methods: prospective cohort study of UK secondary care patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG suitable for topical treatment (recruited July 2009 to June 2012). Participants received topical therapy following normal clinical practice (mainly Class I-III topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%). Primary outcome: speed of healing at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes: proportion healed by 6 months; time to healing; global assessment; inflammation; pain; quality-of-life; treatment failure and recurrence. Results: Sixty-six patients (22 to 85 years) were enrolled. Clobetasol propionate 0.05% was the most commonly prescribed therapy. Overall, 28/66 (43.8%) of ulcers healed by 6 months. Median time-to-healing was 145 days (95% CI: 96 days, ∞). Initial ulcer size was a significant predictor of time-to-healing (hazard ratio 0.94 (0.88;80 1.00); p = 0.043). Four patients (15%) had a recurrence. Limitations: No randomised comparator Conclusion: Topical therapy is potentially an effective first-line treatment for PG that avoids possible side effects associated with systemic therapy. It remains unclear whether more severe disease will respond adequately to topical therapy alone