Bayes Theorem

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.

Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.

Findings: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

Interpretation: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.

Funding: World Health Organization.

Author/s:

Chu, D.K., Akl, E.A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H.J., COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors

Association of Pharmacological Treatments With Long-term Pain Control in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Brian Desmarais — Thu, 09 Jan 2020 19:15:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 9, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Medical Association

Publication Date:

December 25, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

320

URL:

Association of Pharmacological Treatments With Long-term Pain Control in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jama.2018.19319

MeSH

disease management

pain

Osteochondrodysplasias

Spondylometaphyseal dysplasia, Sedaghatian type

Information Storage and Retrieval

Network Meta-Analysis

follow-up studies

Bayes Theorem

osteoarthritis, knee

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of knee osteoarthritis RCTs with at least one year of follow-up, the only pharmacological intervention associated with long term benefits was glucosamine. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

IMPORTANCE:

Even though osteoarthritis is a chronic and progressive disease, pharmacological agents are mainly studied over short-term periods, resulting in unclear recommendations for long-term disease management.

OBJECTIVE:

To search, review, and analyze long-term (≥12 months) outcomes (symptoms, joint structure) from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medications for knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION:

The databases of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until June 30, 2018 (MEDLINE alerts through August 31, 2018) for RCTs of patients with knee osteoarthritis that had treatment and follow-up lasting 1 year or longer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:

Data at baseline and at the longest available treatment and follow-up of 12 months' duration or longer (or the change from baseline) were extracted. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in knee pain. Secondary outcomes were physical function and joint structure (the latter was measured radiologically as joint space narrowing). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and mean differences with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95% CrIs excluded the null value.

RESULTS:

Forty-seven RCTs (22 037 patients; mean age range, mostly 55-70 years; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 70%) included the following medication categories: analgesics; antioxidants; bone-acting agents such as bisphosphonates and strontium ranelate; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; intra-articular injection medications such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids; symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis such as glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate; and putative disease-modifying agents such as cindunistat and sprifermin. Thirty-one interventions were studied for pain, 13 for physical function, and 16 for joint structure. Trial duration ranged from 1 to 4 years. Associations with decreases in pain were found for the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib (SMD, -0.18 [95% CrI, -0.35 to -0.01]) and the symptomatic slow-acting drug in osteoarthritis glucosamine sulfate (SMD, -0.29 [95% CrI, -0.49 to -0.09]), but there was large uncertainty for all estimates vs placebo. The association with pain improvement remained significant only for glucosamine sulfate when data were analyzed using the mean difference on a scale from 0 to 100 and when trials at high risk of bias were excluded. Associations with improvement in joint space narrowing were found for glucosamine sulfate (SMD, -0.42 [95% CrI, -0.65 to -0.19]), chondroitin sulfate (SMD, -0.20 [95% CrI, -0.31 to -0.07]), and strontium ranelate (SMD, -0.20 [95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.05]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies of patients with knee osteoarthritis and at least 12 months of follow-up, there was uncertainty around the estimates of effect size for change in pain for all comparisons with placebo. Larger RCTs are needed to resolve the uncertainty around efficacy of medications for knee osteoarthritis.

Author/s:

Gregori, D., Giacovelli, G., Minto, C., Barbetta, B., Gualtieri, F., Azzolina, D., Vaghi, P.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

John Bayhi — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 19:26:04 +0000

Date Added:

January 2, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

December 12, 2019

URL:

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32982-4

Keywords

PMID (1):

31839279

MeSH

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Europe

Large pragmatic clinical trial from Europe documenting impacts of treatment of influenza with Tamiflu. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

BACKGROUND:

Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups.

METHODS:

We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921.

FINDINGS:

Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group.

INTERPRETATION:

Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner.

FUNDING:

European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Author/s:

Butler, CC, van der Velden, AW, Bongard, E, Saville, BR, Holmes, J, Coenen, S, Cook, J, Francis, NA, Lewis, RJ, Godycki-Cwirko, M, Llor, C, Chlabicz, S, Lionis, C, Seifert, B, Sundvall, PD, Colliers, A, Aabenhus, R, Bjerrum, L, Jonassen Harbin, N, Lindbæk M, Glinz, D, Bucher, HC, Kovacs, B, Radzeviciene Jurgute, R, Touboul Lundgren, P, Little, P, Murphy, AW, De Sutter, A, Openshaw, P, de Jong, MD, Connor, JT, Matheeussen, V, Ieven, M, Goossens, H, Verheij, TJ