A proposed framework to guide evidence synthesis practice for meta-analysis with zero-events studies

ObjectiveIn evidence synthesis practice, researchers often face the problem of how to deal with zero-events. Inappropriately dealing with zero-events studies may lead to research waste and mislead healthcare practice. We propose a framework to guide researchers to better deal with zero-events in meta-analysis. Study Design and SettingWe used two dimensions, one with respect to the total events count across all studies in the comparative arms in a meta-analysis, and a second with respect to whether included studies have single or both arms with zero-events, to establish the framework for the classification of meta-analysis with zero-events studies. A dataset from Cochrane systematic reviews was used to evaluate the classification. ResultsThe proposed framework classifies meta-analysis with zero-events studies into six subtypes. The classification matched well to the large real-world dataset. The applicability of existing methods for zero-events were then presented under each meta-analysis subtype based on this framework, with a 5-step principle to help researchers in evidence synthesis practice. ConclusionsThe proposed framework should be considered by researchers when making decisions on the selection of the synthesis methods in a meta-analysis. It also provides a reasonable basis for the development of methodological guidelines to deal with zero-events in meta-analysis

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials.

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; Iand#178; = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; Iand#178; = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; Iand#178; = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.</p

Comparison of tolerability and adverse symptoms in oxcarbazepine and carbamazepine in the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia and neuralgiform headaches using the Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (AEP)

Background Adverse effects of drugs are poorly reported in the literature . The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of the adverse events of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in particular carbamazepine (CBZ) and oxcarbazepine (OXC) in patients with neuralgiform pain using the psychometrically tested Liverpool Adverse Events Profile (AEP) and provide clinicians with guidance as to when to change management. Methods The study was conducted as a clinical prospective observational exploratory survey of 161 patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia and its variants of whom 79 were on montherapy who attended a specialist clinic in a London teaching hospital over a period of 2 years. At each consultation they completed the AEP questionnaire which provides scores of 19–76 with toxic levels being considered as scores >45. Results The most common significant side effects were: tiredness 31.3 %, sleepiness 18.2 %, memory problems 22.7 %, disturbed sleep 14.1 %, difficulty concentrating and unsteadiness 11.6 %. Females reported significantly more side effects than males. Potential toxic dose for females is approximately 1200 mg of OXC and 800 mg of CBZ and1800mg of OXC and 1200 mg of CBZ for males. Conclusions CBZ and OXC are associated with cognitive impairment. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences are likely to be the reason for gender differences in reporting side effects. Potentially, females need to be prescribed lower dosages in view of their tendency to reach toxic levels at lower dosages. Side effects associated with AED could be a major reason for changing drugs or to consider a referral for surgical management

Outcome of Coronavirus spectrum infections (SARS, MERS, COVID 1 -19) during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to report pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of Coronavirus (CoV) spectrum infections, and particularly COVID-19 disease due to SARS-COV-2 infection during pregnancy. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Cinahl and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched electronically utilizing combinations of word variants for "coronavirus" or "severe acute respiratory syndrome" or "SARS" or "Middle East respiratory syndrome" or "MERS" or "COVID-19" and "pregnancy". The search and selection criteria were restricted to English language. Study eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with a confirmed Coronavirus related illness, defined as either SARS, MERS or COVID-19. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data and reported pooled proportions. The pregnancy outcomes observed included miscarriage, preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and mode of delivery. The perinatal outcomes observed were fetal distress, Apgar score 90% of whom also had pneumonia, PTB is the most common adverse pregnancy outcome. Miscarriage, preeclampsia, cesarean, and perinatal death (7-11%) were also more common than in the general population. There have been no published cases of clinical evidence of vertical transmission. Evidence is accumulating rapidly, so these data may need to be updated soon. The findings from this study can guide and enhance prenatal counseling of women with COVID-19 infection occurring during pregnancy

Cannabinoids, cannabis and cannabis-based medicine for pain management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

ABSTRACT: Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of &lt;7 and &gt;7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis &lt;7 days (risk difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.46; 2 trials, 231 patients, very low-quality evidence) and nabiximols &gt;7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.</p

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomised trials

Randomised controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (ie, all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist, and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomised controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomised controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper

Risk of Herpes Zoster in Individuals on Biologics, DMARDS and/or Corticosteroids for Autoimmune Diseases:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Studies examining the risk of herpes zoster (HZ) associated with immunosuppressants, such as biologics, non-biological disease modifying agents (nbDMARDs) or corticosteroids, have generated conflicting results. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search from Jan 1946 to Feb 2016. Search terms related to HZ, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematous or inflammatory bowel disease, biologics, nbDMARDS and corticosteroids were used. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting associations between immunosuppressants and HZ outcomes in adults. For RCTs, we used the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for HZ risk. For observational studies, adjusted ORs were pooled separately using random-effects inverse variance models. Findings: Data were pooled from 40 eligible RCTs (20,136 patients) and 19 observational studies (810,939 patients). Biologics were associated with a greater risk of HZ than control (RCTs: OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.64; Observational studies: OR OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.39-1.81). In RCTs, the OR of non-TNF blockers was 2.19 (95% CI 1.20-4.02), but that of TNF blockers was not significantly different from control. Increased risks of HZ with nbDMARDs (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.28) and corticosteroids (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.57-1.89) were observed in observational studies, but few RCTs examined these comparisons. Conclusions: Immunocompromized patients receiving biologics were associated with an increased risk of HZ. The risk is also increased with corticosteroids and nbDMARDs. These findings raise the issue of prophylaxis with zoster vaccine in patients initiating immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases