GRADE Approach

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

Bethie Seay — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 30, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Publication Date:

November 15, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.1093/cid/ciab953

PMID (1):

34791102

Recommendations from the Infectious Disease Society of America regarding prevention of COVID-19 infection in health care professionals.

View

Background: Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

Objective: Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

Methods: IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

Results: The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

Conclusions: Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Author/s:

Lynch, J. B., Davitkov, P., Anderson, D. J., Bhimraj, A., Cheng, V. C. C., Guzman-Cottrill, J., Dhindsa, J., Duggal, A., Jain, M. K., Lee, G. M., Liang, S. Y., McGeer, A., Varghese, J., Lavergne, V., Murad, M. H., Mustafa, R. A., Sultan, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Morgan, R. L.

Association of Therapies With Reduced Pain and Improved Quality of Life in Patients With Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Devin Evans — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

January 14, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine

Publication Date:

October 26, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

181

Pages:

104-112

URL:

Association of Therapies With Reduced Pain and Improved Quality of Life in Patients With Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5651

Keywords

Fibromyalgia

quality of life

cognitive behavioral therapy

pain management

PMID (1):

33104162

MeSH

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

This meta-analysis found that cognitive behavioral therapy, antidepressants, and CNS depressants like gabapentin had some effect in the short- and medium-term for relieving pain and/or improving quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia. No other therapies were supported by the current evidence. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Importance: Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition that results in a significant burden to individuals and society.

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of therapies for reducing pain and improving quality of life (QOL) in people with fibromyalgia.

Data sources: Searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, AMED, PsycInfo, and PEDro databases without language or date restrictions on December 11, 2018, and updated on July 15, 2020.

Study selection: All published randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials that investigated therapies for individuals with fibromyalgia were screened for inclusion.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the 0 to 10 PEDro scale. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.

Main outcomes and measures: Pain intensity measured by the visual analog scale, numerical rating scales, and other valid instruments and QOL measured by the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire.

Results: A total of 224 trials including 29 962 participants were included. High-quality evidence was found in favor of cognitive behavioral therapy (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.9; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.3) for pain in the short term and was found in favor of central nervous system depressants (WMD, -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8]) and antidepressants (WMD, -0.5 [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.4]) for pain in the medium term. There was also high-quality evidence in favor of antidepressants (WMD, -6.8 [95% CI, -8.5 to -5.2]) for QOL in the short term and in favor of central nervous system depressants (WMD, -8.7 [95% CI, -11.3 to -6.0]) and antidepressants (WMD, -3.5 [95% CI, -4.5 to -2.5]) in the medium term. However, these associations were small and did not exceed the minimum clinically important change (2 points on an 11-point scale for pain and 14 points on a 101-point scale for QOL). Evidence for long-term outcomes of interventions was lacking.

Conclusions and relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that most of the currently available therapies for the management of fibromyalgia are not supported by high-quality evidence. Some therapies may reduce pain and improve QOL in the short to medium term, although the effect size of the associations might not be clinically important to patients.

Author/s:

Mascarenhas, Rodrigo O., Souza, Mateus B., Oliveira, Murilo X., Lacerda, Ana C., Mendonca, Vanessa A., Henschke, Nicholas, Oliveira, Vinicius C.

Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:42:30 +0000

Date Added:

June 12, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publication Date:

May 19, 2020

URL:

Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2.

MeSH

cardiovascular diseases

6-dimethylaminodibenzopyriodonium citrate

body mass index

Dietary replacement of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids or carbohydrates for at least 2 years, appears to reduce the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Abstract

Background: Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from saturated fats eliminated from the diet are more helpfully replaced by polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, carbohydrate or protein.

Objectives: To assess the effect of reducing saturated fat intake and replacing it with carbohydrate (CHO), polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and/or protein on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, using all available randomised clinical trials.

Search methods: We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) on 15 October 2019, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 October 2019.

Selection criteria: Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and GRADE assessment.

Main results: We included 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (16 comparisons, ~59,000 participants), that used a variety of interventions from providing all food to advice on reducing saturated fat. The included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93, 11 trials, 53,300 participants of whom 8% had a cardiovascular event, I² = 65%, GRADE moderate-quality evidence). Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 56 in primary prevention trials, so 56 people need to reduce their saturated fat intake for ~four years for one person to avoid experiencing a CVD event. In secondary prevention trials, the NNTB was 32. Subgrouping did not suggest significant differences between replacement of saturated fat calories with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate, and data on replacement with monounsaturated fat and protein was very limited. We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes.

Authors' conclusions: The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00000611 NCT02062424 NCT00692536 NCT01954472 NCT01005498 NCT01634841 NCT03354377.

Author/s:

Hopper, L., Martin, N., Jimoh, O.F., Kirk, C., Foster, E., Abdelhamid, A.

Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:24:31 +0000

Date Added:

June 12, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publication Date:

June 1, 2020

URL:

Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9

Keywords

face masks

social distancing

eye shields

MeSH

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

COVID-19

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Coronavirus Infections

Betacoronavirus

masks

Quantification of the impact of social distancing, face masks, and eye shields on spread of the novel coronavirus. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

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