hospitalization

Rationale: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly transmissible pathogen that causes varying degrees of respiratory illness across all age groups. The safety and efficacy profiles of available RSV vaccines, a critical consideration for their integration into public health strategies and clinical practice, remain uncertain.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of RSV vaccines compared to placebo, no intervention, vaccines for other respiratory infections, other RSV vaccines, or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) across all human populations.

Search methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP following standard systematic review methodology from 2000 to April 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) involving all human populations comparing RSV vaccines with placebo, no intervention, vaccines for other respiratory infections, other RSV vaccines, or mAbs. We excluded studies focused on dose-finding schedules and immunogenicity assessment.

Outcomes: Benefits included frequency of RSV illness (both lower and upper respiratory illness) confirmed by laboratory tests (RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness); hospitalisation due to RSV disease (both lower and upper respiratory illness) confirmed by laboratory tests; mortality from illness caused by RSV (confirmed by laboratory test); all-cause mortality; and admission to an intensive care unit. Harms included serious adverse events (SAEs) related to vaccination, including neurological disorders such as Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Risk of bias: We assessed risk of bias in RCTs using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.

Synthesis methods: We used standard Cochrane methods.

Included studies: We identified 14 RCTs: five trials (101,825 participants) on older adults; three trials (12,010 participants) on maternal vaccination and effects on infants; one trial (300 participants) on women of childbearing age; and five trials (192 participants) on infants and children. We identified no NRSIs.

Synthesis of results: RSV prefusion vaccine versus placebo in older adults These vaccines reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with vaccine efficacy (VE) of 77% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.83; risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.30; 4 RCTs, 99,931 participants; high-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness with VE of 67% (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.40; 3 RCTs, 94,339 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). RSV postfusion F protein-based vaccine versus placebo in older adults There is probably little to no difference in RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with VE of -0.37% (95% CI -1.96 to 0.37; RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.96; 1 RCT, 1894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness with VE of -0.07% (95% CI -1.15 to 0.47; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 1894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV F protein-based vaccine versus placebo in infants These vaccines reduced medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with VE of 54% (95% CI 0.28 to 0.71; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 12,010 participants; high-certainty evidence), medically attended RSV-associated severe lower respiratory tract illness with VE of 74% (95% CI 0.44 to 0.88; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.56; 3 RCTs, 12,010 participants; high-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation due to RSV disease with VE of 54% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73; 2 RCTs, 11,502 participants; high-certainty evidence) in infants. There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination in mothers and infants (low-certainty evidence). Live-attenuated RSV vaccines versus placebo in infants and children The evidence is very uncertain regarding all-cause medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI) with VE of 26% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.46; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.01; 5 RCTs, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated MAARI with VE of 38% (95% CI -0.24 to 0.69; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; 5 RCTs, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). RSV recombinant F nanoparticle vaccine versus placebo in women of childbearing age The evidence is very uncertain regarding new RSV infections with VE of 50% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.73; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.92; 1 RCT, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). Phase III trials consistently demonstrated low risk of bias. Whilst phase I and II trials occasionally raised concerns about selection bias in the randomisation process, the overall evidence was deemed robust.

Authors' conclusions: RSV prefusion vaccines reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and acute respiratory illness in older adults. There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination in older adults. Maternal vaccination with RSV F protein-based vaccines reduced medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and severe cases in infants. There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination in mothers and infants. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of RSV vaccine on women of childbearing age, and the effects of live-attenuated RSV vaccines on infants and children; there may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination.

Funding: This review was funded by the EU4Health Programme under a service contract with the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA).

Registration: The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023439128).

Author/s:

K M Saif-Ur-Rahman, Catherine King, Seán Olann Whelan, Matthew Blair, Seán Donohue, Caoimhe Madden, Kavita Kothari, Isolde Sommer, Thomas Harder, Nicolas Dauby, Ida Rask Moustsen-Helms, Simona Ruta, Julie Frère, Viktoria Schönfeld, Eero Poukka, Irja Lutsar, Kate Olsson, Angeliki Melidou, Karam Adel Ali, Kerry Dwan, Declan Devane

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Linda Fowler — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 18:39:33 +0000

Date Added:

January 18, 2024

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Medical Virology

Publisher:

Wiley Online Library

Publication Date:

December 17, 2023

Issue:

Volume:

URL:

Outpatient randomized controlled trials to reduce COVID-19 hospitalization: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/jmv.29310

Keywords

randomized controlled trial

small molecule antivirals

PMID (1):

38105461

MeSH

Antibodies, Monoclonal / therapeutic use

Antiviral Agents / therapeutic use

COVID-19 Serotherapy

COVID-19* / therapy

outpatients

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

hospitalization

Humans

A comparison of the impact of various treatments for COVID-19 on rates of hospitalizations. Figure 5 provides the best summary. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

This COVID-19 outpatient randomized controlled trials (RCTs) systematic review compares hospitalization outcomes amongst four treatment classes over pandemic period, geography, variants, and vaccine status. Outpatient RCTs with hospitalization endpoint were identified in Pubmed searches through May 2023, excluding RCTs <30 participants (PROSPERO-CRD42022369181). Risk of bias was extracted from COVID-19-NMA, with odds ratio utilized for pooled comparison. Searches identified 281 studies with 61 published RCTs for 33 diverse interventions analyzed. RCTs were largely unvaccinated cohorts with at least one COVID-19 hospitalization risk factor. Grouping by class, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (OR = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.24-0.40]) had highest hospital reduction efficacy, followed by COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) (OR = 0.69 [95% CI = 0.53-0.90]), small molecule antivirals (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.48-1.33]), and repurposed drugs (OR = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.72-0.93]). Earlier in disease onset interventions performed better than later. This meta-analysis allows approximate head-to-head comparisons of diverse outpatient interventions. Omicron sublineages (XBB and BQ.1.1) are resistant to mAbs Despite trial heterogeneity, this pooled comparison by intervention class indicated oral antivirals are the preferred outpatient treatment where available, but intravenous interventions from convalescent plasma to remdesivir are also effective and necessary in constrained medical resource settings or for acute and chronic COVID-19 in the immunocompromised.

Author/s:

Daniele Focosi, David J. Sullivan, Daniel F. Hanley, Mario Cruciani, Massimo Franchini, Jiangda Ou, Arturo Casadevall, Nigel Paneth

Epley manoeuvre’s efficacy for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary-care and subspecialty settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rowan Hutchins — Sat, 09 Dec 2023 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

December 9, 2023

Journal/Publication:

BMC Primary Care

Publisher:

BMC

Publication Date:

December 2, 2023

Issue:

262

Volume:

URL:

Epley manoeuvre’s efficacy for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary-care and subspecialty settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1186/s12875-023-02217-z

Keywords

epley maneuvers

primary care

Clinical

benign paroxysmal positional vertigo

PMID (1):

38042776

MeSH

Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo* / diagnosis

Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo* / therapy

General Practitioners*

hospitalization

Epley maneuvers performed in primary care settings may be just as effective as when performed in subspecialty settings. Primary care clinicians and their staffs should be equipped to perform this simple therapeutic technique. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point estimates or certainty of evidence. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis and clarified the efficacy of EM for BPPV, regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings.

Author/s:

Yusuke Saishoji, Norio Yamamoto, Takashi Fujiwara, Hideki Mori, Shunsuke Taito

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Saige Blanchard — Wed, 19 Jan 2022 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 19, 2022

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Internal Medicine

Publisher:

American College of Physicians

Publication Date:

January 18, 2022

URL:

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.7326/M21-2710

Keywords

diagnosis

Clinical Guideline

American College of Physicians

Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis

PMID (1):

35038273

MeSH

Adult

Diverticulitis, Colonic

abscess

drainage

tomography, x-ray computed

anti-bacterial agents

hospitalization

Abdominal CT is probably the test of choice when the diagnosis of acute left-sided diagnosis is in doubt and important. We still don’t know whether it is necessary to treat uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis with antibiotics (probably not), and if so, which antibiotics to choose. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis in adults. This guideline is based on current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) developed this guideline based on a systematic review on the use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on management via hospitalization, antibiotic use, and interventional percutaneous abscess drainage. The systematic review evaluated outcomes that the CGC rated as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.

Target audience and patient population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with suspected or known acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.

Author/s:

Qaseem, A., Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, I., Lin, J. S., Fitterman, N., Shamliyan, T., Wilt, T. J., Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

Effect of Amoxicillin Dose and Treatment Duration on the Need for Antibiotic Re-treatment in Children With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: The CAP-IT Randomized Clinical Trial

Bethie Seay — Sun, 07 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 7, 2021

Journal/Publication:

JAMA

Publication Date:

November 2, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

326

Pages:

1713-1724

Type:

Clinical Research Results

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2021.17843

3 days of standard dose amoxicillin was as effective as 7 days of high-dose amoxicillin for treatment of CAP in children discharged from an ED. In both cases, additional antibiotic treatment was required subsequently in around 12.5% of kids.

View

Importance
The optimal dose and duration of oral amoxicillin for children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are unclear.

Objective
To determine whether lower-dose amoxicillin is noninferior to higher dose and whether 3-day treatment is noninferior to 7 days.

Design, Setting, and Participants
Multicenter, randomized, 2 × 2 factorial noninferiority trial enrolling 824 children, aged 6 months and older, with clinically diagnosed CAP, treated with amoxicillin on discharge from emergency departments and inpatient wards of 28 hospitals in the UK and 1 in Ireland between February 2017 and April 2019, with last trial visit on May 21, 2019.

Interventions
Children were randomized 1:1 to receive oral amoxicillin at a lower dose (35-50 mg/kg/d; n = 410) or higher dose (70-90 mg/kg/d; n = 404), for a shorter duration (3 days; n = 413) or a longer duration (7 days; n = 401).

Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was clinically indicated antibiotic re-treatment for respiratory infection within 28 days after randomization. The noninferiority margin was 8%. Secondary outcomes included severity/duration of 9 parent-reported CAP symptoms, 3 antibiotic-related adverse events, and phenotypic resistance in colonizing Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates.

Results
Of 824 participants randomized into 1 of the 4 groups, 814 received at least 1 dose of trial medication (median [IQR] age, 2.5 years [1.6-2.7]; 421 [52%] males and 393 [48%] females), and the primary outcome was available for 789 (97%). For lower vs higher dose, the primary outcome occurred in 12.6% with lower dose vs 12.4% with higher dose (difference, 0.2% [1-sided 95% CI –∞ to 4.0%]), and in 12.5% with 3-day treatment vs 12.5% with 7-day treatment (difference, 0.1% [1-sided 95% CI –∞ to 3.9]). Both groups demonstrated noninferiority with no significant interaction between dose and duration (P = .63). Of the 14 prespecified secondary end points, the only significant differences were 3-day vs 7-day treatment for cough duration (median 12 days vs 10 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4]; P = .04) and sleep disturbed by cough (median, 4 days vs 4 days; HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4]; P = .03). Among the subgroup of children with severe CAP, the primary end point occurred in 17.3% of lower-dose recipients vs 13.5% of higher-dose recipients (difference, 3.8% [1-sided 95% CI, –∞ to10%]; P value for interaction = .18) and in 16.0% with 3-day treatment vs 14.8% with 7-day treatment (difference, 1.2% [1-sided 95% CI, –∞ to 7.4%]; P value for interaction = .73).

Conclusions and Relevance
Among children with CAP discharged from an emergency department or hospital ward (within 48 hours), lower-dose outpatient oral amoxicillin was noninferior to higher dose, and 3-day duration was noninferior to 7 days, with regard to need for antibiotic re-treatment. However, disease severity, treatment setting, prior antibiotics received, and acceptability of the noninferiority margin require consideration when interpreting the findings.

Trial Registration
ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN76888927

Author/s:

Bielicki, J. A., Stöhr, W., Barratt, S., Dunn, D., Naufal, N., Roland, D., Sturgeon, K., Finn, A., Rodriguez-Ruiz, J. P., Malhotra-Kumar, S., Powell, C., Faust, S. N., Alcock, A. E., Hall, D., Robinson, G., Hawcutt, D. B., Lyttle, M. D., Gibb, D. M., Sharland, M.

Efficacy and Safety of Nonantibiotic Outpatient Treatment in Mild Acute Diverticulitis (DINAMO-study): A Multicentre, Randomised, Open-label, Noninferiority Trial

Bethie Seay — Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 2, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Annals of Surgery

Publication Date:

November 1, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

274

Pages:

e435-e442

Type:

Clinical Research Results

DOI (1):

10.1097/SLA.0000000000005031

PMID (1):

34183510

MeSH

Humans

Amoxicillin-potassium clavulanate combination

anti-bacterial agents

prospective studies

outpatients

Anti-Inflammatory Agents

Ambulatory Care

hospitalization

pain management

Emergency Service, hospital

hospitals

tomography

pain

Apparently it isn’t necessary to treat patients with mild diverticulitis with antibiotics.

View

Objective:
Mild AD can be treated safely and effectively on an outpatient basis without antibiotics.

Summary of Background Data:
In recent years, it has shown no benefit of antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated AD in hospitalized patients. Also, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated AD has been shown to be safe and effective.

Methods:
A Prospective, multicentre, open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial, in 15 hospitals of patients consulting the emergency department with symptoms compatible with AD.

The Participants were patients with mild AD diagnosed by Computed Tomography meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to control arm (ATB-Group): classical treatment (875/125 mg/8 h amoxicillin/clavulanic acid apart from anti-inflammatory and symptomatic treatment) or experimental arm (Non-ATB-Group): experimental treatment (antiinflammatory and symptomatic treatment). Clinical controls were performed at 2, 7, 30, and 90 days.

The primary endpoint was hospital admission. Secondary endpoints included number of emergency department revisits, pain control and emergency surgery in the different arms.

Results:
Four hundred and eighty patients meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to Non-ATB-Group (n = 242) or ATB-Group (n = 238). Hospitalization rates were: ATB-Group 14/238 (5.8%) and Non-ATB-Group 8/242 (3.3%) [mean difference 2.58%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.32 to -1.17], confirming noninferiority margin. Revisits: ATB-Group 16/238 (6.7%) and Non-ATB-Group 17/242 (7%) (mean difference -0.3, 95% CI 4.22 to -4.83). Poor pain control at 2 days follow up: ATB-Group 13/230 (5.7%), Non-ATB-Group 5/221 (2.3%) (mean difference 3.39, 95% CI 6.96 to -0.18).

Conclusions:
Nonantibiotic outpatient treatment of mild AD is safe and effective and is not inferior to current standard treatment.

Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02785549); EU Clinical Trials Register (2016-001596-75)

Author/s:

Mora-López, L., Ruiz-Edo, N., Estrada-Ferrer, O., Piñana-Campón, M. L., Labró-Ciurans, M., Escuder-Perez, J., Sales-Mallafré, R., Rebasa-Cladera, P., Navarro-Soto, S., Serra-Aracil, X.

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season

Bethie Seay — Thu, 26 Aug 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

August 26, 2021

Type:

Public Health Announcements

MeSH

Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype

SARS-CoV-2

influenza, human

vaccines, inactivated

Pregnancy Trimester, Third

Inpatients

prevalence

united states food and drug administration

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.

Intensive Care Units

Cell Culture Techniques

delivery of health care

The 2021-2022 CDC recommendations regarding administration of influenza vaccines.

View

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-v....

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used according to Food and Drug Administration–licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC’s influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu); vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.

Author/s:

Grohskopf, L. A., Alyanak, E., Ferdinands, J. M., Broder, K. R., Blanton, L. H., Talbot, H. K., Fry, A. M.

Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:48:40 +0000

Date Added:

June 29, 2020

Journal/Publication:

JAMA network open

Publisher:

Journal of American Medical Association

Publication Date:

June 1, 2020

URL:

Association Between Age and Complications After Outpatient Colonoscopy

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8958

MeSH

renal insufficiency, chronic

hospitalization

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

early detection of cancer

risk factors

cohort studies

incidence

retrospective studies

The risk of major complications of colonoscopy is greater for liver disease (odds ratio [OR], 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5) smokers (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), patients who are obese (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2), and patients who are over 75 years of age (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6). James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

Importance: There are insufficient data describing the incidence and risk factors of postcolonoscopy complications in older individuals.

Objective: To assess the association between older age (≥75 years) and the risk of postcolonoscopy complications.

Design, setting, and participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study included adults (≥50 years) undergoing outpatient colonoscopy between April 2008 and September 2017, identified from Ontario administrative databases. Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. The study population was subdivided into a colorectal cancer screening-eligible cohort (patients aged 50-74 years) and an older cohort (patients aged ≥75 years). The statistical analysis was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019.

Exposures: Older age (≥75 years).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was postcolonoscopy complications, defined as the composite of hospitalization or emergency department visits in the 30-day period after the outpatient colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Independent variables associated with postcolonoscopy complications were also assessed.

Results: The study sample included 38 069 patients; the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (10.1) years, there were 19 037 women (50.0%), and 27 831 patients (73.1%) underwent a first colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence of complications was 3.4% (1310 patients) in the overall population, and it was higher in individuals aged 75 years or older (515 of 7627 patients [6.8%]) than in screening-eligible cohort (795 of 30 443 patients [2.6%]) (P < .001). Independent risk factors for postcolonoscopy complications were age 75 years or older (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 2.0-2.6), anemia (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), cardiac arrhythmia (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2), congestive heart failure (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.5-4.6), hypertension (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0), liver disease (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), smoking history (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.4-4.3), and obesity (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2). The number of previous colonoscopies was associated with a lower risk of complications (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.0). The incidence of surgically treated colorectal cancer was higher in the older cohort than the screening-eligible cohort (119 patients [1.6%] vs 144 patients [0.5%]; P < .001). All-cause mortality rates were 0.1% overall (39 patients) and 0.1% (19 patients) for individuals aged 50 to 74 years and 0.2% (20 patients) for those aged 75 years and older (P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance: In this population-based cohort study of individuals living in southern Ontario, age of 75 years and older was associated with a higher risk of 30-day postprocedure complications after outpatient colonoscopy. These findings suggest that the decision to perform a colonoscopy should be carefully considered in patients older than 75 years, especially in the presence of comorbidities. Further studies are needed to better understand the benefits of invasive procedures as opposed to less invasive approaches for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance among older patients.

Author/s:

Causada-Calo, N., Bishay, K., Albashir, S., Mazroui, A.A., Armstrong, D.

Effectiveness of a Mouth Care Program Provided by Nursing Home Staff vs Standard Care on Reducing Pneumonia Incidence: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 15:39:47 +0000

Date Added:

June 22, 2020

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Network Open

Publisher:

American Medical Association

Publication Date:

June 1, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

URL:

Effectiveness of a Mouth Care Program Provided by Nursing Home Staff vs Standard Care on Reducing Pneumonia Incidence: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4321

Keywords

MeSH

The organisms responsible for pneumonia live in the mouth. Technically, nearly all pneumonias are due to aspiration. At least one RCT in Japan showed that excellent oral hygiene (by dental hygienists) in NHs can reduce the incidence of pneumonia. This study showed that enhanced oral hygiene performed by nurses reduced pneumonia episodes for the first year, and then the effect waned. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

Importance: Pneumonia affects more than 250 000 nursing home (NH) residents annually. A strategy to reduce pneumonia is to provide daily mouth care, especially to residents with dementia.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Mouth Care Without a Battle, a program that increases staff knowledge and attitudes regarding oral hygiene, changes mouth care, and improves oral hygiene, in reducing the incidence of pneumonia among NH residents.

Design, setting, and participants: This pragmatic cluster randomized trial observing 2152 NH residents for up to 2 years was conducted from September 2014 to May 2017. Data collectors were masked to study group. The study included 14 NHs from regions of North Carolina that evidenced proportionately high rehospitalization rates for pneumonia and long-term care residents. Nursing homes were pair matched and randomly assigned to intervention or control groups.

Intervention: Mouth Care Without a Battle is a standardized program that teaches that mouth care is health care, provides instruction on individualized techniques and products for mouth care, and trains caregivers to provide care to residents who are resistant and in special situations. The control condition was standard mouth care.

Main outcomes and measures: Pneumonia incidence (primary) and hospitalization and mortality (secondary), obtained from medical records.

Results: Overall, the study enrolled 2152 residents (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [12.4] years; 1281 [66.2%] women; 1180 [62.2%] white residents). Participants included 1219 residents (56.6%) in 7 intervention NHs and 933 residents (43.4%) in 7 control NHs. During the 2-year study period, the incidence rate of pneumonia per 1000 resident-days was 0.67 and 0.72 in the intervention and control NHs, respectively. Neither the primary (unadjusted) nor secondary (covariate-adjusted) analyses found a significant reduction in pneumonia due to Mouth Care Without a Battle during 2 years (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.90; upper bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 1.24; P = .27; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92; upper bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 1.27; P = .30). In the second year, the rate of pneumonia was nonsignificantly higher in intervention NHs. Adjusted post hoc analyses limited to the first year found a significant reduction in pneumonia incidence in intervention NHs (IRR, 0.69; upper bound of 1-sided 95% CI, 0.94; P = .03).

Conclusions and relevance: This matched-pairs cluster randomized trial of a mouth care program compared with standard care was not effective in reducing pneumonia incidence at 2 years, although reduction was found during the first year. The lack of significant results in the second year may be associated with sustainability. Improving mouth care in US NHs may require the presence and support of dedicated oral care aides.

Author/s:

Zimmerman, S., Sloane, P.D., Ward, K., Wretman, C.J., Stearns, S.C., Poole, P., Preisser, J.S.

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease

John Bayhi — Thu, 02 Apr 2020 18:30:58 +0000

Date Added:

April 2, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The New England Journal of Medicine

Publisher:

Massachusetts Medical Society

Publication Date:

March 30, 2020

Issue:

Online ahead of print

URL:

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1056/nejmoa1915922

Keywords

coronary artery disease

cardiac ischemia

cardiac interventions

PMID (1):

32227755

MeSH

myocardial infarction

coronary artery disease

Once again, opening up coronary arteries by whatever invasive method does not prevent heart attacks any better than medical management. CABG and PTCA should be reserved for patients with clinically significant angina unresponsive to medical management and possibly those with critical LAD stenosis or CHF with 3-vessel disease. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.

Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.

Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).

Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Author/s:

Maron, DJ, Hochman, JS, Reynolds, HR, Bangalore, S, O'Brien, SM, Boden, WE, Chaitman, BR, Senior, R, Lopez-Sendon, J, Alexander, KP, Lopes, RD, Shaw, LJ, Berger, JS, Newman, JD, Sidhu, MS, Goodman, SG, Ruzyllo, W, Gosselin, G, Maggioni, AP, White, HD, Bhargava, B, Min, JK, Mancini, GBJ, Berman, DS, Picard, MH, Kwong, RY, Ali, ZA, Mark, DB, Spertus, JA, Krishnan, MN, Elghamaz, A, Moorthy, N, Hueb, WA, Demkow, M, Mavromatis, K, Bockeria, O, Peteiro, J, Miller, TD, Szwed, H, Doerr, R, Keltai, M, Selvanayagam, JB, Steg, PG, Held, C, Kohsaka, S, Mavromichalis, S, Kirby, R, Jeffries, NO, Harrell, FE Jr, Rockhold, FW, Broderick, S, Ferguson, TB Jr, Williams, DO, Harrington, RA, Stone, GW, Rosenberg, Y, ISCHEMIA Research Group

Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Effects of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade on Outcomes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

John Bayhi — Sat, 14 Mar 2020 20:03:18 +0000

Date Added:

March 14, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The American Journal of Cardiology

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

January 30, 2020

URL:

Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Effects of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade on Outcomes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.01.009

Keywords

RAAS Anatgonists

heart failure

PMID (1):

32081366

ACEIs, ARBs, and spironolactone do not appear to reduce mortality or CHF hospitalizations in patients with CHF with preserved LV function. However, the combination of sacubitril (a neprilysin inhibitor) and valsartan may reduce CHF hospitalizations in those patients. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Clinical trials of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have suggested neutral results and treatment is focused on associated symptoms and comorbidities. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through October 2019 for randomized controlled studies investigating the effects of different RAAS antagonists in patients with HFpEF. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, trial defined cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. To compare different RAAS antagonists, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood network meta-analysis based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. We used p scores to rank best treatments per outcome. Our search identified 5 eligible clinical trials (PEP-CHF, perindopril; CHARM-preserved, candesartan; I-PRESERVE, irbesartan; TOPCAT, spironolactone; PARAGON-HF, sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan) enrolling a total 10,523 on RAAS antagonists and 6,259 controls. We did not identify any statistical difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among RAAS antagonists and placebo. The combination of sacubitril-valsartan was associated with significantly decreased HF hospitalization risk compared with controls (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.87) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.91), without heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) ranked better than other RAAS antagonists for HF hospitalizations (p value 0.9). In conclusion, RAAS antagonists do not affect mortality but the combination of sacubitril-valsartan is associated with lower HF hospitalizations in HFpEF patients.

Author/s:

Kuno, T, Ueyama, H, Fujisaki, T, Briasouli, A, Takagi, H, Briasoulis, A

Identifying optimal doses of heart failure medications in men compared with women: a prospective, observational, cohort study

Brian Desmarais — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 19:20:10 +0000

Date Added:

August 24, 2019

Journal/Publication:

The Lancet

Publication Date:

August 22, 2019

URL:

Identifying optimal doses of heart failure medications in men compared with women: a prospective, observational, cohort study

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31792-1

Keywords

Cardiology

Vascular medicine

MeSH

ventricular dysfunction, left

Peptidyl-Dipeptidase A

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors

Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists

It appears, from this analysis of a large clinical trial, that women with CHF need only half the doses of ACEs, ARBs, and beta blockers that men do to achieve the same benefits. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Summary

Background

Guideline-recommended doses of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), and β blockers are similar for men and women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), even though there are known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of these drugs. We hypothesised that there might be sex differences in the optimal dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers in patients with HFrEF.

Methods

We did a post-hoc analysis of BIOSTAT-CHF, a prospective study in 11 European countries of patients with heart failure in whom initiation and up-titration of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers was encouraged by protocol. We included only patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and excluded those who died within the first 3 months. Primary outcome was a composite of time to all-cause mortality or hospitalisation for heart failure. Findings were validated in ASIAN-HF, an independent cohort of 3539 men and 961 women with HFrEF.

Findings

Among 1308 men and 402 women with HFrEF from BIOSTAT-CHF, women were older (74 [12] years vs 70 [12] years, p<0·0001) and had lower bodyweights (72 [16] kg vs 85 [18] kg, p<0·0001) and heights (162 [7] cm vs 174 [8] cm, p<0·0001) than did men, although body-mass index did not differ significantly. A similar number of men and women reached guideline-recommended target doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (99 [25%] vs 304 [23%], p=0·61) and β blockers (57 [14%] vs 168 [13%], p=0·54). In men, the lowest hazards of death or hospitalisation for heart failure occurred at 100% of the recommended dose of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers, but women showed approximately 30% lower risk at only 50% of the recommended doses, with no further decrease in risk at higher dose levels. These sex differences were still present after adjusting for clinical covariates, including age and body surface area. In the ASIAN-HF registry, similar patterns were observed for both ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers, with women having approximately 30% lower risk at 50% of the recommended doses, with no further benefit at higher dose levels.

Interpretation

This study suggests that women with HFrEF might need lower doses of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and β blockers than men, and brings into question what the true optimal medical therapy is for women versus men.

Funding

European Commission.

Author/s:

Santema, B.T., Ouwerkerk, W., Tromp, J., Sama, I.E., Ravera, A., Regitz-Zagrosek, V.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Iron-Fortified versus Low-Iron Infant Formula: Developmental Outcomes at 16 Years

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 19 Aug 2019 15:00:24 +0000

Date Added:

August 19, 2019

Journal/Publication:

Journal of Pediatrics

Publication Date:

June 25, 2019

URL:

Randomized Controlled Trial of Iron-Fortified versus Low-Iron Infant Formula: Developmental Outcomes at 16 Years

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

Keywords

MeSH

Anemia, Iron-Deficiency

infants

Perhaps we are overprescribing iron fortified formulas for infants without iron deficiency anemia. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

OBJECTIVES:

To test differences in cognitive outcomes among adolescents randomly assigned previously as infants to iron-fortified formulaor low-iron formula as part of an iron deficiency anemia prevention trial.

STUDY DESIGN:

Infants were recruited from community clinics in low- to middle-income neighborhoods in Santiago, Chile. Entrance criteria included term, singleton infants; birth weight of ≥3.0 kg; and no major congenital anomalies, perinatal complications, phototherapy, hospitalization >5 days, chronic illness, or iron deficiency anemia at 6 months. Six-month-old infants were randomized to iron-fortified(12 mg/L) or low-iron (2.3 mg/L) formula for 6 months. At 16 years of age, cognitive ability, visual perceptual ability, visual memory, and achievement in math, vocabulary, and comprehension were assessed, using standardized measures. We compared differences in developmental test scores according to randomization group.

RESULTS:

At the follow-up assessment, the 405 participants averaged 16.2 years of age and 46% were male. Those randomized to iron-fortified formula had lower scores than those randomized to low-iron formula for visual memory, arithmetic achievement, and reading comprehension achievement. For visual motor integration, there was an interaction with baseline infancy hemoglobin, such that the iron-fortified group outperformed the low-iron group when 6-month hemoglobin was low and underperformed when 6-month hemoglobin was high.

CONCLUSIONS:

Adolescents who received iron-fortified formula as infants from 6 to 12 months of age at levels recommended in the US had poorer cognitive outcomes compared with those who received a low-iron formula. The prevention of iron deficiency anemia in infancy is important for brain development. However, the optimal level of iron supplementation in infancy is unclear.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01166451.

Author/s:

Gahagan, S., Delker, E., Blanco, E., Burrows, R., Lozoff, B.