Search

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06642-7.

Background Recent surveys of Canadian cannabis users reflect increasing consumption rates, some of whom may have diabetes. However, healthcare providers have limited information resources on the effects of recreational cannabis in people with diabetes. This rapid review was commissioned by Diabetes Canada to synthesize available evidence to guide recommendations for care of people 13 years of age and older who live with diabetes. Methods PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO databases were searched from January 2008 to January 2019. Study selection, data abstraction and quality appraisal were completed by pairs of reviewers working independently and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer with pilot tests completed before each stage to ensure consistency. Data collected from included studies were tabulated and summarized descriptively. Results The search resulted in 1848 citations of which 59 publications were selected for screening, resulting in six observational studies (2 full-text articles and 4 conference abstracts) that met the pre-defined criteria for inclusion. Five studies reported higher glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who consumed recreational cannabis. In one study, students aged 17 to 25 years living with T1D self-reported poorer glycemic control and higher HbA1c when smoking cannabis. In one study of adults with T1D, cannabis use within the previous 12 months was associated with almost double the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis compared with no cannabis use (odds ratio [OR] 1.98; confidence interval [CI] [95% CI] 1.01–3.91). Risks for peripheral arterial occlusion and myocardial infarction were found to be higher in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who consumed recreational cannabis, and worse renal parameters were also reported in two separate studies of T1D and T2D. Conclusions Recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviours in people with T1D. In people with T2D, recreational cannabis may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction and renal disease. However, the evidence base of this rapid review was limited to six observational studies of poor to fair methodological quality, and thus, further robust, higher quality research is required to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019122829

BackgroundThe overall objective of this rapid review was to identify infection protection and control recommendations from published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for adults aged 60 years and older in long-term care settingsMethodsComprehensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and relevant CPG publishers/repositories were carried out in early March 2020. Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (AGREE-II) were carried out by single reviewers.ResultsA total of 17 relevant CPGs were identified, published in the USA (n=8), Canada (n=6), Australia (n=2), and the United Kingdom (n=1). All of the CPGs dealt with infection control in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and addressed various types of viral respiratory infections (e.g., influenza, COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome). Ten or more CPGs recommended the following infection control measures in LTCF: hand hygiene (n=13), wearing personal protective equipment (n=13), social distancing or isolation (n=13), disinfecting surfaces (n=12), droplet precautions (n=12), surveillance and evaluation (n=11), and using diagnostic testing to confirm illness (n=10). While only two or more CPGs recommended these infection control measures: policies and procedures for visitors, staff and/or residents (n=9), respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette (n=9), providing supplies (n=9), staff and/or residents education (n=8), increasing communication (n=6), consulting or notifying health professionals (n=6), appropriate ventilation practices (n=2), and cohorting equipment (n=2). Ten CPGs also addressed management of viral respiratory infections in LTCF and recommended antiviral chemoprophylaxis (n=10) and one CPG recommended early mobilization of residents.ConclusionThe recommendations from current guidelines overall seem to support environmental measures for infection prevention and antiviral chemoprophylaxis for infection management as the most appropriate first-line response to viral respiratory illness in long-term care.

BackgroundThe overall objective of this rapid overview of reviews (overview hereafter) was to identify evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) for infection control and prevention practices for adults aged 60 years and older in long-term care settings.MethodsComprehensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org, clinicaltrials.gov and the Global Infectious Disease Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) were carried out in early March 2020. Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were carried out by single reviewers.ResultsA total of 6 SRs published between 1999 and 2018 were identified and included in the overview. The SRs included between 1 and 37 primary studies representing between 140 to 908 patients. All of the primary studies included in the SRs were carried out in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and examined pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or combined interventions. One high quality SR found mixed results for the effectiveness of hand hygiene to prevent infection (2 studies statistically significant positive results, 1 study non-statistically significant results). One moderate quality SR with meta-analysis found a moderate non-statistically significant effect for personal protective equipment (PPE) in preventing infection and found no statistically significant results for the effectiveness of social isolation. One moderate quality SR reported statically significant evidence for the effectiveness of amantadine and amantadine + PPE to prevent infection with respiratory illness in LTCF.ConclusionThe current evidence suggests that with antiviral chemoprophylaxis with adamantine is effective in managing respiratory illness in residents of long-term care facilities. The rest of the strategies can be used in long-term care facilities, yet have limited evidence supporting their use from systematic reviews.

Objectives To illustrate the use of process mining concepts, techniques, and tools to improve the systematic review process. Study Design and Setting We simulated review activities and step-specific methods in the process for systematic reviews conducted by one research team over 1 year to generate an event log of activities, with start/end dates, reviewer assignment by expertise, and person-hours worked. Process mining techniques were applied to the event log to “discover” process models, which allowed visual display, animation, or replay of the simulated review activities. Summary statistics were calculated for person-time and timelines. We also analyzed the social networks of team interactions. Results The 12 simulated reviews included an average of 3,831 titles/abstracts (range: 1,565–6,368) and 20 studies (6–42). The average review completion time was 463 days (range: 289–629) (881 person-hours [range: 243–1,752]). The average person-hours per activity were study selection 26%, data collection 24%, report preparation 23%, and meta-analysis 17%. Social network analyses showed the organizational interaction of team members, including how they worked together to complete review tasks and to hand over tasks upon completion. Conclusion Event log and process mining can be valuable tools for research teams interested in improving and modernizing the systematic review process.

Background Internet gaming disorder (IGD) was included in the DSM-5 in 2013 as a condition requiring further research, and gaming disorder (GD) was included in the ICD-11 in 2018. Given the importance of including these conditions in diagnostic guidelines, a review was conducted to describe their prevalence. Methods Using guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a rapid scoping review. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane library were searched for literature published from inception to July 2018. All review stages were pilot-tested to calibrate reviewers. The titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened by one reviewer to include quantitative primary studies that reported GD or IGD prevalence. Excluded citations were screened by a second reviewer to confirm exclusion. Charting was conducted by one reviewer and verified by another, to capture relevant data. Results were summarized descriptively in tables or text. Results We assessed 5550 potentially relevant citations. No studies on GD were identified. We found 160 studies of various designs that used 35 different methods to diagnose IGD. The prevalence of IGD ranged from 0.21–57.50% in general populations, 3.20–91.00% in clinical populations, and 50.42–79.25% in populations undergoing intervention (severe cases). Most studies were conducted in the Republic of Korea (n = 45), China (n = 29), and the USA (n = 20). Results are also presented for severe IGD and by geographic region, gender/sex, and age groups (child, adolescent, adult). The five most frequently reported health-related variables were depression (67 times), Internet addiction (54 times), anxiety (48 times), impulsiveness (37 times), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (24 times). Conclusions Due to the variability in diagnostic approaches, knowledge users should interpret the wide IGD prevalence ranges with caution. In addition to further research on GD, consensus on the definition of IGD and how it is measured is needed, to better understand the prevalence of these conditions.

Background In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) era, there is growing recognition of the responsibilities of non-health sectors in improving the health of children. Interventions to improve access to clean water, sanitation facilities, and hygiene behaviours (WASH) represent key opportunities to improve child health and well-being by preventing the spread of infectious diseases and improving nutritional status. Methods We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating the effects of WASH interventions on childhood diarrhea in children 0–5 years old. Searches were run up to September 2016. We screened the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles, followed by screening of the full-text reports of relevant studies. We abstracted study characteristics and quantitative data, and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were performed for similar intervention and outcome pairs. Results Pooled analyses showed diarrhea risk reductions from the following interventions: point-of-use water filtration (pooled risk ratio (RR): 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36–0.62), point-of-use water disinfection (pooled RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60–0.79), and hygiene education with soap provision (pooled RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57–0.94). Quality ratings were low or very low for most studies, and heterogeneity was high in pooled analyses. Improvements to the water supply and water disinfection at source did not show significant effects on diarrhea risk, nor did the one eligible study examining the effect of latrine construction. Conclusions Various WASH interventions show diarrhea risk reductions between 27% and 53% in children 0–5 years old, depending on intervention type, providing ample evidence to support the scale-up of WASH in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Due to the overall low quality of the evidence and high heterogeneity, further research is required to accurately estimate the magnitude of the effects of these interventions in different contexts.