Measuring antibiotic availability and use in 20 low- and middle-income countries

Objective To assess antibiotic availability and use in health facilities in low- and middle-income countries, using the service provision assessment and service availability and readiness assessment surveys. Methods We obtained data on antibiotic availability at 13 561 health facilities in 13 service provision assessment and 8 service availability and readiness assessment surveys. In 10 service provision assessment surveys, child consultations with health-care providers were observed, giving data on antibiotic use in 22 699 children. Antibiotics were classified as access, watch or reserve, according to the World Health Organization’s AWaRe categories. The percentage of health-care facilities across countries with specific antibiotics available and the proportion of children receiving antibiotics for key clinical syndromes were estimated. Findings The surveys assessed the availability of 27 antibiotics (19 access, 7 watch, 1 unclassified). Co-trimoxazole and metronidazole were most widely available, being in stock at 89.5% (interquartile range, IQR: 11.6%) and 87.1% (IQR: 15.9%) of health facilities, respectively. In contrast, 17 other access and watch antibiotics were stocked, by fewer than a median of 50% of facilities. Of the 22 699 children observed, 60.1% (13 638) were prescribed antibiotics (mostly co-trimoxazole or amoxicillin). Children with respiratory conditions were most often prescribed antibiotics (76.1%; 8972/11 796) followed by undifferentiated fever (50.1%; 760/1518), diarrhoea (45.7%; 1293/2832) and malaria (30.3%; 352/1160). Conclusion Routine health facility surveys provided a valuable data source on the availability and use of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries. Many access antibiotics were unavailable in a majority of most health-care facilities

Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants

Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for the prevention of migraine in adults

Background: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2005 on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for preventing migraine and tension-type headache. The original review has been split in two parts and this review now only regards migraine prevention. Another updated review is under development to cover tension-type headache. Migraine is a common disorder. The chronic forms are associated with disability and have a high economic impact. In view of discoveries about the role of serotonin and other neurotransmitters in pain mechanisms, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) have been evaluated for the prevention of migraine. Objectives: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of SSRIs and SNRIs compared to placebo and other active interventions in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in adults. Search strategy: For the original review, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1994 to May 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2003, Issue 4), and Headache Quarterly (1990 to 2003). For this update, we applied a revised search strategy to reflect the broader type of intervention (SSRIs and SNRIs). We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2014), EMBASE (1980 to November 2014), and PsycINFO (1987 to November 2014). We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and searched trial registries for ongoing trials. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with any type of control intervention in participants 18 years and older of either sex with migraine. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted data (migraine frequency, index, intensity, and duration; use of symptomatic/analgesic medication; days off work; quality of life; mood improvement; cost-effectiveness; and adverse events) and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome of this updated review is migraine frequency. Main results: The original review included eight studies on migraine. Overall, we now include 11 studies on five SSRIs and one SNRI with a total of 585 participants. Six studies were placebo-controlled, four compared a SSRI or SNRI to amitriptyline, and one was a head-to-head comparison (escitalopram versus venlafaxine). Most studies had methodological or reporting shortcomings (or both): all studies were at unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. Follow-up rarely extended beyond three months. The lack of adequate power of most of the studies is also a major concern. Few studies explored the effect of SSRIs or SNRIs on migraine frequency, the primary endpoint. Two studies with unclear reporting compared SSRIs and SNRIs to placebo, suggesting a lack of evidence for a difference. Two studies compared SSRIs or SNRIs versus amitriptyline and found no evidence for a difference in terms of migraine frequency (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to 0.80; I2 = 72%), or other secondary outcomes such as migraine intensity and duration. SSRIs or SNRIs were generally more tolerable than tricyclics. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of the number of participants who withdrew due to adverse advents or for other reasons (one study, odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.50 and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.34). We did not find studies comparing SSRIs or SNRIs with pharmacological treatments other than antidepressants (e.g. antiepileptics and anti-hypertensives)

Using Clinical Evidence in a national continuing medical education program in Italy.

No abstrac

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for subacute and chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND: Although research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.The quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I(2) = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.For patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.None of the included studies reported on adverse effects.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with N

Time from adenosine di-phosphate receptor antagonist discontinuation to coronary bypass surgery in patients with acute coronary syndrome: meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND: Adenosine di-phosphate receptor antagonists (ADPRAs) blunt hemostasis for several days after administration. This effect, aimed at preventing cardiac ischemic complications particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), may increase perioperative bleeding in the case of cardiac surgery. Practice Guidelines recommend withholding ADPRAs for at least 5days prior to surgery, though with a weak base of evidence. The purpose of this study was to systematically review observational and experimental studies of early or late preoperative discontinuation of ADPRAs prior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with ACS. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library databases up to December 2011; and reference lists. Observational and experimental studies that compared early ADPRA discontinuation with late discontinuation, or no discontinuation, in patients with ACS undergoing CABG. RESULTS: There were 19 studies, including 14,046 participants, 395 deaths and 309 reoperations due to bleeding. ADPRA late discontinuation up to CABG was associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality (OR 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.93) and reoperations due to bleeding (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.47 to 2.62). Between-study heterogeneity was low. Meta-analysis limited to high quality or prospective studies gave consistent results. In most instances, the 95% prediction intervals for summary risk estimates confirmed the risk across study groups. CONCLUSIONS: ADPRA late discontinuation prior to CABG is associated with an increased risk of death and reoperations due to bleeding in patients with ACS. The confidence in the estimates of risk for late discontinuation is moderate to high