Search

Ersilia Lucenteforte,1 Niccolò Lombardi,1,* Davide Liborio Vetrano,2,* Domenico La Carpia,2,* Zuzana Mitrova,3 Ursula Kirchmayer,3 Giovanni Corrao,4 Francesco Lapi,5 Alessandro Mugelli,1 Alfredo Vannacci1 On behalf of the Italian Group for Appropriate Drug prescription in the Elderly (I-GrADE) 1Department of Neurosciences, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy; 2Department of Geriatrics Catholic University, Rome, Italy; 3Department of Epidemiology, ASL 1 Rome, Italy; 4Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; 5Epidemiology Unit, ARS Toscana, Florence, Italy *These authors contributed equally to this work Abstract: Avoiding medications in which the risks outweigh the benefits in the elderly patient is a challenge for physicians, and different criteria to identify inappropriate prescription (IP) exist to aid prescribers. Definition of IP indicators in the Italian geriatric population affected by cardiovascular disease and chronic comorbidities could be extremely useful for prescribers and could offer advantages from a public health perspective. The purpose of the present study was to identify IP indicators by means of a systematic literature review coupled with consensus criteria. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases was conducted, with the search structured around four themes and combining each with the Boolean operator “and”. The first regarded “prescriptions”, the second “adverse events”, the third “cardiovascular conditions”, and the last was planned to identify studies on “older people”. Two investigators independently reviewed titles, abstracts, full texts, and selected articles addressing IP in the elderly affected by cardiovascular condition using the following inclusion criteria: studies on people aged ≥65 years; studies on patients with no restriction on age but with data on subjects aged ≥65 years; and observational effectiveness studies. The database searches produced 5,742 citations. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts of 3,880 records were reviewed, and 374 full texts were retrieved that met inclusion criteria. Thus, 49 studies reporting 32 potential IP indicators were included in the study. IP indicators regarded mainly drug–drug interactions, cardio- and cerebrovascular risk, bleeding risk, and gastrointestinal risk; among them, only 19 included at least one study that showed significant results, triggering a potential warning for a specific drug or class of drugs in a specific context. This systematic review demonstrates that both cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular drugs increase the risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults with cardiovascular diseases. Keywords: inappropriate prescriptions, elderly, cardiovascular diseases, chronic diseases, systematic review

Objectives. To explore the interaction between surgeon volumes (SVs) and hospital volumes (HVs) on health outcomes. Materials and Methods. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science as of May 2017. We included studies investigating the interaction between high or low SVs operating in high or low HVs. Review process follows the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using validated critical appraisal checklists. Results. Sixteen studies were included. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis. Heath outcome are worse when high SV operating in low HV vs high HV, for the majority of the conditions (colorectal cancer, cystectomy, liver resection, mitral valve surgery, pancreatico-duodenectomy). Results for low SV are better when operating in high HV vs low HV for patients undergoing pancreatic-duodenectomy for mortality, 30 days complications and length of stay. Results for low SV are worse vs high SV when operating in high HV for most considered conditions. Results were in favour of higher SV vs low SV when operating in low HV for digital replantation success after injuries, 30 days mortality and complications after pancreatic-duodenectomy. Conclusion. The available evidence is limited. It is necessary to increase the monitoring of the association between surgeons volumes and hospitals volumes in which they operate, to ensure fairness and accuracy of care for better health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Italy is a destination country for a growing international migration, accounting for 8.4% of the total population. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the difficulties in accessing healthcare services among immigrants, and barriers due to linguistic and cultural differences had a significant impact during the pandemic. This paper presents the methodology used in the project 'Epidemiological surveillance and control of COVID-19 in metropolitan urban areas for the containment of SARS-CoV-2 circulation in the immigrant population in Italy', carried out with the technical and financial support of the Italian Ministry of Health. This methodology is aimed to identify and select statements available in the literature, transferable to the Italian context, on the topic of interventions deemed useful in reducing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the foreign population in urban/metropolitan settings.In February 2022, a systematic search was conducted in databases such as Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, as well as on national and international websites (WHO, Italian Institute of Health, and CDC), and on 'RecMap' (included in the 'COVID19 Recommendations' website) to identify guidelines containing recommendations on the management and prevention of COVID-19 among immigrants. The selected recommendations were divided into intervention areas (infection control, vaccination, screening, planning and monitoring, healthcare systems). In the first phase, a group of researchers independently assessed the inclusion of recommendations through three rounds of consensus. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was used to assess the quality of the included guidelines. In the second phase, an external group of experts independently evaluated the relevance of the included recommendations using a Likert scale. The document is the result of a collaborative work based on evidence from the literature available until that time. The adaptation and adoption of recommendations already formulated by other international organizations on the topic of preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluated through a consensus process with experts, can be a valid method aimed at producing documents to inform and guide those involved in the care of immigrants in Italy, as well as promoting inclusive forms of prevention in emergency contexts.

Background: Prolactinoma, the most common pituitary adenoma, is usually treated with dopamine agonist (DA) therapy like cabergoline. Surgery is second-line therapy, and radiotherapy is used if surgical treatment fails or in relapsing macroprolactinoma., Objective: This study aimed to provide economic evidence for the management of prolactinoma in Italy, using a cost-of-illness and cost-utility analysis that considered various treatment options, including cabergoline, bromocriptine, temozolomide, radiation therapy, and surgical strategies., Methods: The researchers conducted a systematic literature review for each research question on scientific databases and surveyed a panel of experts for each therapeutic procedure's specific drivers that contributed to its total cost., Results: The average cost of the first year of treatment was €2,558.91 and €3,287.40 for subjects with microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma, respectively. Follow-up costs from the second to the fifth year after initial treatment were €798.13 and €1,084.59 per year in both groups. Cabergoline had an adequate cost-utility profile, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,201.15 compared to bromocriptine, based on a willingness-to-pay of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the reference economy. Endoscopic surgery was more cost-effective than cabergoline, with an ICER of €44,846.64. Considering a willingness-to-pay of €40,000/QALY, the baseline findings show cabergoline to have high cost utility and endoscopic surgery just a tad above that., Conclusions: Due to the favorable cost-utility profile and safety of surgical treatment, pituitary surgery should be considered more frequently as the initial therapeutic approach. This management choice could lead to better outcomes and an appropriate allocation of healthcare resources., (© 2024 The Authors.)

To study whether allowing adolescents and young adults (AYA) with chronic or oncologic diseases admitted to tertiary or intensive care units to share decisions in choosing the insertion site for central-venous catheters (CVC) implanted for intravenous therapies or parenteral nutrition reduces central-line-associated and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CLABSI and CRBSI). Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to December 2019. According to our aims, the review identified no study that could be included. This empty systematic review on healthcare teams allowing AYA with chronic or oncologic diseases admitted in tertiary or intensive care units to share decisions in choosing the site for implanting CVC prompts further research on clinical pathways on this hot-topic. By considering purportedly risk-taking behaviors in youngsters thus reducing CLABSI and CRBSI, healthcare teams should test specific strategies by engaging AYA empathetically in sharing decisions on the site for implanting CVC to improve quality in health care bundles., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Aim: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a clinical practice reference for the management of sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) in adults. PHPT management in pregnancy was not considered., Methods: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the Italian National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinology (AME) and Società Italiana dell'Osteoporosi, del Metabolismo Minerale e delle Malattie dello Scheletro (SIOMMMS) identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence. Those classified as "critical" were considered for the clinical practice recommendations., Results: The present GL provides recommendations about the roles of pharmacological and surgical treatment for the clinical management of sporadic PHPT. Parathyroidectomy is recommended in comparison to surveillance or pharmacologic treatment in any adult (outside of pregnancy) or elderly subject diagnosed with sporadic PHPT who is symptomatic or meets any of the following criteria: • Serum calcium levels >1 mg/dL above the upper limit of normal range. • Urinary calcium levels >4 mg/kg/day. • Osteoporosis disclosed by DXA examination and/or any fragility fracture. • Renal function impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min). • Clinic or silent nephrolithiasis. • Age ≤50 years. Monitoring and treatment of any comorbidity or complication of PHPT at bone, kidney, or cardiovascular level are suggested for patients who do not meet the criteria for surgery or are not operated on for any reason. Sixteen indications for good clinical practice are provided in addition to the recommendations., Conclusion: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists and surgeons - working in hospitals, territorial services or private practice - and to general practitioners and patients. The recommendations should also consider the patient's preferences and the available resources and expertise., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objectives: to describe studies that evaluated the screening programmes implemented in the school during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. Studies published until December 2021 were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out by two authors independently., Setting and Participants: teachers and students belonging to schools of all levels, including universities., Main Outcomes Measures: a. transmission-related outcomes (such as the number or proportion of cases, cumulative frequency, incidence); b. feasibility/acceptability of the screening strategies; c. socioeconomic outcomes (such as testing cost, number of days spent in school, quarantine)., Results: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,822 records were retrieved. Thirty-six studies were included (15 used an observational design and 21 modelling study). Regarding the former, the methodological quality has been rated as high in 2 studies, intermediate in 6 and low in 2; in the remaining ones, it was not evaluated because only descriptive. Screenings were quite different in terms of school study population, types of tests used, methods of submission and analysis, and level of incidence in the community at the time of implementation. Outcome indicators were also varied, a heterogeneity that, on the one hand, did not allow for meta-analysis of results and, on the other, allowed for testing the performance of the screenings in very different settings. All of the field studies claim that the screenings reduced SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection among children, adolescents, and college students, curbing at-school transmission and helping to reduce the number of closing school days. Studies that evaluated the cost of the intervention emphasized its cost-effectiveness, while those that focused on the acceptability of the instrument showed a preference among children, adolescents, and parents for minimally invasive, self-administered tests with high sensitivity and lower frequency of repetition. Simulation-based studies are mostly based on compartmental and agent-based models. Their quality is quite high methodologically, although uncertainty quantification and external validation, aimed at verifying the model ability to reproduce observed data, are lacking in many cases. The contexts to which the simulations refer are all school-based, although 7 studies consider residential situations, which are poorly suited to the Italian context. All simulation-based models indicate the importance of planning repeated testing on asymptomatic individuals to limit contagion. However, the costs of these procedures can be high unless assessments are spaced out or pool testing procedures are used. Obtaining high student adherence to the screening programme is extremely important to maximize results., Conclusions: school-based screenings, especially when combined with other preventive measures, have been important public health tools to contain infections during COVID-19 waves and to ensure children's and adolescents' right to education and to prevent the fallout in physical and mental health (with strong equity consequences) associated with school closures.

Aim: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a reference for the management of non-functioning, benign thyroid nodules causing local symptoms in adults outside of pregnancy., Methods: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinology (AME) identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence and only those classified as "critical" were considered in the formulation of recommendations., Results: The present GL contains recommendations about the respective roles of surgery and minimally invasive treatments for the management of benign symptomatic thyroid nodules. We suggest hemithyroidectomy plus isthmectomy as the first-choice surgical treatment, provided that clinically significant disease is not present in the contralateral thyroid lobe. Total thyroidectomy should be considered for patients with clinically significant disease in the contralateral thyroid lobe. We suggest considering thermo-ablation as an alternative option to surgery for patients with a symptomatic, solid, benign, single, or dominant thyroid nodule. These recommendations apply to outpatients, either in primary care or when referred to specialists., Conclusion: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists, surgeons, and interventional radiologists working in hospitals, in territorial services, or private practice, general practitioners, and patients. The available data suggest that the implementation of this GL recommendations will result in the progressive reduction of surgical procedures for benign thyroid nodular disease, with a decreased number of admissions to surgical departments for non-malignant conditions and more rapid access to patients with thyroid cancer. Importantly, a reduction of indirect costs due to long-term replacement therapy and the management of surgical complications may also be speculated., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Introduction: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a reference for the management of prolactin (PRL)-secreting pituitary adenoma in adults. However, pregnancy is not considered., Methods: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the Italian National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinologi (AME) has identified potentially relevant outcomes, which have then been rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" have been considered in the systematic review of evidence and only those classified as "critical" have been considered in the formulation of recommendations., Results: The present GL provides recommendations regarding the role of pharmacological and neurosurgical treatment in the management of prolactinomas. We recommend cabergoline (Cab) vs. bromocriptine (Br) as the firstchoice pharmacological treatment to be employed at the minimal effective dose capable of achieving the regression of the clinical picture. We suggest that medication and surgery are offered as suitable alternative first-line treatments to patients with non-invasive PRL-secreting adenoma, regardless of size. We suggest Br as an alternative drug in patients who are intolerant to Cab and are not candidates for surgery. We recommend pituitary tumor resection in patients 1) without any significant neuro-ophthalmologic improvement within two weeks from the start of Cab, 2) who are resistant or do not tolerate Cab or other dopamine-agonist drugs (DA), 3) who escape from previous efficacy of DA, and 4) who are unwilling to undergo a chronic DA treatment. We recommend that patients with progressive disease notwithstanding previous tumor resection and ongoing DA should be managed by a multidisciplinary team with specific expertise in pituitary diseases using a multimodal approach that includes repeated surgery, radiotherapy, DA, and possibly, the use of temozolomide., Conclusion: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists, neurosurgeons, and gynecologists working in hospitals, in territorial services or private practice, and to general practitioners and patients., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objectives: to evaluate the impact of school closures, as a measure to contain the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the psychological well-being of students of all levels starting from the 2020-2021 school year., Design: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. The literature search was conducted on 4 different databases: MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, and L.OVE Platform. Quantitative observational studies published until 10.01.2022 were included. Studies conducted during the first pandemic wave, i.e., during the 2019-2020 school year and/or during the mandatory lockdown or confinement period, were excluded. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors., Setting and Participants: children, adolescents, and young people attending all levels of education (including universities) and, for reasons related to COVID-19, having a suspension of "in presence" school or attending classes remotely., Main Outcome Measures: a. outcomes directly related to mental health: suicides, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for psychiatric problems; anxiety and depression, emotional difficulties, feelings of loneliness and isolation; b. well-being outcomes: sleep quality, perceived well-being (by child/adolescent/youth or referred by parents); c. health-related behaviours: tobacco smoking, alcohol, drug use. Outcomes related to school/academic performance, physical health, and those related to parents were not considered., Results: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,830 records were retrieved with the bibliographic search. Twelve studies (2 uncontrolled before-after studies and 10 cross sectional surveys) were included, involving a total of 27,787 participants. Three studies involved university students, 2 involved high school students, and the remaining involved a mixed population of students attending primary and middle schools. The studies were conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. The methodological quality was rated as high in five studies and intermediate in the remaining studies. Due to the high heterogeneity of outcome measures and statistical analyses performed among the included studies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis of the results of the considered publications. Nevertheless, the present review showed a clear signal of increase in mental health problems in relation to school closure or virtual instruction. In particular, results suggest evidence of association between school closure and risk of suicidal attempts or thoughts, mental health symptoms such as anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, psychological stress. Sleeping problems, drug and alcohol addiction were poorly studied., Conclusions: despite the limitations of the included studies and possible residual confounding and contamination due to restrictive measures and social isolation implemented during the pandemic, the available evidence confirms the negative impact on students' mental health associated with school closures and distance learning. Given the availability of vaccination also for young children, a long period of school closure should be avoided also in the case of the emergence of new pandemic waves.

Background: Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder., Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ., Findings: We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low])., Interpretation: Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FDC is supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) professorship to AC (grant RP-2017–08-ST2–006) and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005), and is a DPhil candidate at the University of Oxford and an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim International. EGO is supported by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health National Health Service Foundation Trust, by the NIHR Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20005), and has also received research and consultancy fees from Angelini Pharma. AT has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials) and Angelini Pharma. DJQ has received funding for a randomised controlled trial of melatonin in acute mania (MIAMI-UK), funded by the UK National Institute for Health (RCPG 0407-10155-RISC); Lundbeck supplied the active modified release medication and placebo but were otherwise independent of the study. DJQ has also received a consultancy fee from Guidepoint (Boston, MA, USA). AC is supported by the NIHR Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, by an NIHR Research professorship (RP-2017-08-ST2–006), by the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration, and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215–20005). AC has also received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation, and Angelini Pharma, and is the chief and principal investigator of two trials about seltorexant in depression, sponsored by Janssen. OE was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (80083). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore the clinical evidence available on mindful organizing (MO) that will improve teamwork for positioning and managing central venous catheters in patients admitted to neonatal intensive care and other pediatric intensive care units to decrease central-line-associated and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CLABSI and CRBSI)., Methods: We searched several databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) up to June 2018. We included studies investigating the effectiveness of MO teamwork in reducing CLABSI and CRBSI. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. We used validated appraisal checklists to assess quality., Results: Seven studies were included: only one was a non-randomized case-controlled trial (CCT). All the others had a pre-post intervention design, one a time-series design and one an interrupted time-series design. The methodological heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. Despite the low certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, three studies including thousands of participants provided numerical data for calculating risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing MO with no intervention for decreasing the CLABSI rate in neonatal and pediatric ICUs. The one CCT disclosed no significant difference in the CLABSI rate decrease between groups (RR = 0.96; 95%CI 0.47-1.97). Nor did the pre- and post-intervention interrupted time-series design disclose a significant decrease (RR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.36 1.77). In the study using a before-after study design, the GRADE system found that the CLABSI rate decrease differed significantly in favor of post-intervention (RR = 0.13; 95%CI 0.03 0.57; p  = 0.007)., Conclusions: Despite the decreased CLABSI rate, the available evidence is low in quality. To reduce the unduly high CLABSI rates in neonatal and pediatric intensive care settings, custom-designed clinical trials should further define the clinical efficacy of MO to include it in care bundles as a new international standard.

Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Addis, Amato, Cruciani, Saulle, De Crescenzo, Mitrova, Vecchi, Perrone and Davoli.)

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 De Crescenzo, Amato, Cruciani, Moynihan, D’Alò, Vecchi, Saulle, Mitrova, Di Franco, Addis and Davoli.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19., Aim: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies., Methods: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria., Results: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events., Conclusions: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.

Background: The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD., Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach., Results: We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on "restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors" (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.35 to - 0.07, moderate certainty), "hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior" (SMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.42, moderate certainty), "social communication, social interaction" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.16, moderate certainty), "emotional dysregulation/irritability" (SMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.43, low certainty), "global functioning, global improvement" (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.33, low certainty), "obsessions, compulsions" (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on "self-harm" (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), "anxiety" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty)., Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

Background: It is unclear whether the administration of antipsychotics to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is acceptable, equitable, and feasible., Methods: We performed a systematic review to support a multidisciplinary panel in formulating a recommendation on antipsychotics, for the development of the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. A comprehensive search strategy was performed to find data related to intervention acceptability, health equity, and implementation feasibility. We used quantitative data from randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis assessing the acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics, and we estimated the certainty of the effect according to the GRADE approach. We extracted data from systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature, and we assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the published studies., Results: Antipsychotics were acceptable (dropouts due to any cause: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78, moderate certainty of evidence) and well tolerated (dropouts due to adverse events: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55-1.79, low certainty of evidence) by children and adolescents with ASD. Parents and clinicians did not raise significant issues concerning acceptability. We did not find studies reporting evidence of reduced equity for antipsychotics in disadvantaged subgroups of children and adolescents with ASD. Workloads, cost barriers, and inadequate monitoring of metabolic adverse events were indirect evidence of concerns for feasibility., Conclusion: Antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD were likely acceptable and possibly feasible. We did not find evidence of concern for equity.

Introduction: Some recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy and safety of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To optimally inform the Italian guideline for the management of ASD in children and adolescents, we reviewed the impact on equity, acceptability and feasibility for developing a pilot recommendation for PUFAs., Methods: We performed a rapid systematic review of observational and experimental studies on PUFAs for children and adolescents with ASD, extracting data on resources required, equity, acceptability, and feasibility of PUFAs. We followed the framework provided by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and we assessed risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies. Results were synthesized both narratively and quantitatively to address clinically relevant questions on equity, acceptability, and feasibility., Results: We found 14 papers related to equity. PUFAs did not seem to impact equity importantly. We did not find variation in effectiveness across subgroups and in a base case scenario, the cost of a 12 weeks cycle of therapy with 1.155 g/day of PUFAs was €65.51 euro. The acceptability of PUFAs was evaluated in 17 studies, 9 of which were RCTs. PUFAs were widely used among children and adolescents with ASD (18 to 51%), and 50% of parents considered nutritional supplementation as useful. Difficulty in swallowing capsules and bad taste were identified as possible causes of poor compliance, but treatment adherence, when measured in included RCTs, was judged to be good to excellent. Discontinuation due to any cause for PUFAs could not differ from placebo (low certainty of evidence). The feasibility of using PUFAs was assessed in 12 studies. PUFAs were probably sustainable, and no particular critical issue emerged from the feasibility assessment. However, the evidence appeared scarce and indirect., Conclusions: We found the administration of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD to be potentially equitable, acceptable and feasible. These results are limited by the limited number and quality of retrieved documents, and need to be viewed in light of efficacy and safety data to formulate clinical recommendations.

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed PUFAs to be effective for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but international guidelines have not considered yet this body of evidence. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD, for the Italian national guidelines on the management of ASD in children and adolescents., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PUFAs versus placebo or a healthy diet for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. The outcomes considered were deemed by the guideline panel to be highly relevant to children and adolescents with ASD and to their caregivers. The outcomes included hyperactivity, quality of sleep, self-harm, aggression, irritability, anxiety, attention, adaptive functioning, social interaction, restricted and repetitive interests and behavior, communication, hyperactivity and disruptive behaviors coexistent with core symptoms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the rating of the confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: We included 9 studies with 405 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from low to very low. Six studies included preschoolers and school-age children, three studies included both children and adolescents. The majority of participants were males (83.8%), with a mean age of 6.7 years. PUFAs were superior compared to placebo in reducing anxiety in individuals with ASD (SMD -1.01, 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.17; very low certainty of evidence). Moreover, PUFAs worsened quality of sleep compared to a healthy diet (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.00; very low certainty of evidence). PUFAs were not better than placebo in reducing aggression, hyperactivity, adaptive functioning, irritability, restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors and communication. Effects on some critical outcomes such as sleep, self-harm and disruptive behavior are currently unknown. The main limitations were the small number of participants included in the RCTs and the dosage which varied greatly (from 200 mg/day to 1540 mg/day), making it difficult to address causal inference., Conclusions: PUFAs did not show evidence of effect in children and adolescents with ASD and the certainty of evidence as measured with the GRADE was low to very low. Further research is needed on this topic because the available evidence is inconclusive.

Objectives: To explore the interaction between surgeon volumes (SVs) and hospital volumes (HVs) on health outcomes., Materials and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science as of May 2017. We included studies investigating the interaction between high or low SVs operating in high or low HVs. Review process follows the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using validated critical appraisal checklists., Results: Sixteen studies were included. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, it was not possible to perform a quantitative analysis. Heath outcome are worse when high SV operating in low HV vs high HV, for the majority of the conditions (colorectal cancer, cystectomy, liver resection, mitral valve surgery, pancreatico-duodenectomy). Results for low SV are better when operating in high HV vs low HV for patients undergoing pancreatic-duodenectomy for mortality, 30 days complications and length of stay. Results for low SV are worse vs high SV when operating in high HV for most considered conditions. Results were in favour of higher SV vs low SV when operating in low HV for digital replantation success after injuries, 30 days mortality and complications after pancreatic-duodenectomy., Conclusions: The available evidence is limited. It is necessary to increase the monitoring of the association between surgeons volumes and hospitals volumes in which they operate, to ensure fairness and accuracy of care for better health outcomes.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that depression affects about 121 million people in the world and in terms of years of illness, by the year 2020 could become the second most prevalent disease in the world population after cardiovascular diseases. Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) seems to induce remission in depression when added to an antidepressant., Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SGAs for the treatment of depression., Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases. We assessed the quality of evidence using Cochrane and GRADE criteria., Results: We included 42 RCTs. Where possible, we made a statistical synthesis of results. For efficacy outcomes, in direct comparisons in unipolar and bipolar patients with acute depressive episode, and in unipolar patients who did not respond to previous treatments with antidepressants (non-responders), SGAs gave better results than placebo, moderate to low certainty of evidence. In the comparison with antidepressants, in unipolar and bipolar patients with acute depressive episode the evidence was in favour of SGAs high certainty of evidence; while in the non-responder unipolar patients (the included studies considered only this typology of patients) the evidence was in favour of the antidepressants, low certainty of evidence. For safety outcomes, the results were in favour of placebo for patients with at least one adverse event, and in favour of SGAs for the number of patients with serious adverse events, for both comparisons the certainty of evidence was moderate. Comparing the SGAs with antidepressants, no differences were observed for patients with at least one adverse event, high certainty of evidence; while serious adverse events were less acute in patients treated with SGAs, moderate certainty evidence. The results of direct and indirect comparisons made with the network meta-analysis showed no differences for most of the outcomes considered, not showing a clear superiority of a drug compared to the others., Conclusions: These results showed a moderate effect in favour of SGAs compared to antidepressants in patients, unipolar and bipolar, with a new acute depressive episode and confirm that in patients non-responders, antidepressants may remain more effective.

Background: Several Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available to treat anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Questions about the comparability of such therapeutic options are not purely a regulatory or economical matter. Appropriate use of originator or biosimilar in these patients need to be supported by clinical data. Regarding the prevention of blood transfusion, reduction of fatigue, breathlessness and mortality or cardiovascular events, a summary of the comparative efficacy and safety data of these drugs is lacking., Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase through November 11, 2015. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different ESAs originators and/or biosimilar. The considered participants were adults aged 18 years or older with anemia due to CKD. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system., Results: We identified 30 eligible studies including 7843 patients with CKD, and 21/30 studies included patients using hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Compared with ESA biosimilars, epoetin α did not statistically differ for any of the ten measured outcomes. The quality of evidence varied from low to very low. In the comparison between epoetin α vs. darbepoetin α, no differences were observed for all outcomes, but blood transfusions showed favorable results for darbepoetin α: RR 2.18 (1.31-3.62). The quality of evidence varied from low to very low. No differences were observed between epoetin β and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin β, and between darbepoetin α and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin β, the quality of evidence varied from moderate to very low., Conclusions: Data from 31 included studies allowed to pool data in meta-analysis related to four different comparisons and eleven outcome measures. Nevertheless, only one result was statistically significant in favor of darbepoetin α in the comparison with epoetin α concerning blood transfusions. For all the other outcomes and comparisons, we did not find any differences in terms of efficacy and security between the EPO considered. The quality of evidence is quite low, and further research could change these results. Further high quality studies examining the comparative effectiveness of ESAs need to be conducted.

Background: There is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues., Methods: Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors., Results: From 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions., Conclusions: This review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.

Background: medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate symptoms. In the United States, 23 states and Washington DC (May 2015) have introduced laws to permit the medical use of cannabis. Within the European Union, medicinal cannabis laws and praxis vary wildly between Countries., Objectives: to provide evidence for benefits and harms of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) treatment for adults in the following indications: control of spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis; control of pain in patients with chronic neuropathic pain; control of nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy., Methods: we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception to September 2016. We also searched for on-going studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal. All searches included also non-English language literature. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) compared with placebo or other pharmacological agents were included. Three authors independently evaluated the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the literature searches for their eligibility. For studies considered eligible, we retrieved full texts. Three investigators independently extracted data. For the assessment of the quality of evidence, we used the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and GRADE working Group., Results: 41 trials (4,550 participants) were included; 15 studies considered efficacy and safety of cannabis for patients with multiple sclerosis, 12 for patients with chronic pain, and 14 for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. The included studies were published between 1975 and 2015, and the majority of them were conducted in Europe. We judged almost 50% of these studies to be at low risk of bias. The large majority (80%) of the comparisons were with placebo; only 8 studies included patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy comparing cannabis with other antiemetic drugs. Concerning the efficacy of cannabis (compared with placebo) in patients with multiple sclerosis, confidence in the estimate was high in favour of cannabis for spasticity (numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale, but not the Ashworth scale) and pain. For chronic and neuropathic pain (compared with placebo), there was evidence of a small effect; however, confidence in the estimate is low and these results could not be considered conclusive. There is uncertainty whether cannabis, including extracts and tinctures, compared with placebo or other antiemetic drugs reduces nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer requiring chemotherapy, although the confidence in the estimate of the effect was low or very low. In the included studies, many adverse events were reported and none of the studies assessed the development of abuse or dependence., Conclusions: there is incomplete evidence of the efficacy and safety of medical use of cannabis in the clinical contexts considered in this review. Furthermore, for many of the outcomes considered, the confidence in the estimate of the effect was again low or very low. To give conclusive answers to the efficacy and safety of cannabis used for medical purposes in the clinical contexts considered, further studies are needed, with higher quality, larger sample sizes, and possibly using the same diagnostic tools for evaluating outcomes of interest.

BACKGROUND Improving quality and effectiveness of healthcare is one of the priorities of health policies. Hospital or physician volume represents a measurable variable with an impact on effectiveness of healthcare. An Italian law calls for the definition of «qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care». There is a need for an evaluation of the available scientific evidence in order to identify qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care, including the volume of care above or below which the public and private hospitals may be accredited (or not) to provide specific healthcare interventions. OBJECTIVES To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been investigated. To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been proved. To analyze the distribution of Italian health providers by volume of activity. To measure the association between volume of care and outcomes of the health providers of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS Systematic review An overview of systematic reviews was performed searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to November 2016. Studies were evaluated by 2 researchers independently; quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR checklist. For each health condition and outcome, if available, total number of studies, participants, high volume cut-off values, and metanalysis have been reported. According to the considered outcomes, health topics were classified into 3 groups: positive association: a positive association was demonstrated in the majority of studies/participants and/or a pooled measure (metanalysis) with positive results was reported; lack of association: both studies and/or metanalysis showed no association; no sufficient evidence of association: both results of single studies and metanalysis do not allow to draw firm conclusions on the association between volume and outcome. Analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals by volume of activity and the association between volume of activity and outcomes: the Italian National Outcome evaluation Programme 2016 The analyses were performed using the Hospital Information System and the National Tax Register (year 2015). For each condition, the number of hospitals by volume of activity was calculated. Hospitals with a volume lower than 3-5 cases/year were excluded. For conditions with more than 1,500 cases/year and frequency of outcome ≥1%, the association between volume of care and outcome was analyzed estimating risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS Bibliographic searches identified 80 reviews, evaluating 48 different clinical areas. The main outcome considered was intrahospital/30-day mortality. The other outcomes vary depending on the type of condition or intervention in study. The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes was considered in 47 out of 48 conditions: 34 conditions showed evidence of a positive association; • 14 conditions consider cancer surgery for bladder, breast, colon, rectum, colon rectum, oesophagus, kidney, liver, lung, ovaries, pancreas, prostate, stomach, head and neck; • 11 conditions consider cardiocerebrovascular area: nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myocardial infarction, brain aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass, paediatric heart surgery, revascularization of lower limbs, stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage; • 2 conditions consider orthopaedic area: knee arthroplasty, hip fracture; • 7 conditions consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, cholecystectomy, intensive care unit, neonatal intensive care unit, sepsis, and traumas; for 3 conditions, no association was demonstrated: hip arthroplasty, dialysis, and thyroidectomy. for the remaining 10 conditions, the available evidence does not allow to draw firm conclusions about the association between hospital volume and considered outcomes: surgery for testicular cancer and intracranial tumours, paediatric oncology, aortofemoral bypass, cardiac catheterization, appendectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia, respiratory failure, and hysterectomy. The relationship between volume of clinician/surgeon and outcomes was assessed only through the literature re view; to date, it is not possible to analyze this association for Italian health provider hospitals, since information on the clinician/surgeon on the hospital discharge chart is missing. The literature found a positive association for 21 conditions: 9 consider surgery for cancer: bladder, breast, colon, colon rectum, pancreas, prostate, rectum, stomach, and head and neck; 5 consider the cardiocerebrovascular area: ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, paediatric heart surgery, and revascularization of the lower limbs; 2 consider the orthopaedic area: knee and hip arthroplasty; 5 consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, hysterectomy, intensive care unit, and thyroidectomy. The analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals concerned the 34 conditions for which the systematic review has shown a positive volume-outcome association. For the following, it was possible to conduct the analysis of the association using national data: unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, coronary angioplasty, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass, cancer surgery (colon, liver, breast, pancreas, lung, prostate, kidney, and stomach), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hip fracture, stroke, acute myocardial infarction. For these conditions, the association between volume and outcome of care was observed. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy and surgery of the breast and stomach cancer, the association between the volume of the discharge (o dismissal) operating unit and the outcome was analyzed. The outcomes differ depending on the condition studied. The shape of the relationship is variable among different conditions, with heterogeneous slope of the curves. DISCUSSION For many conditions, the overview of systematic reviews has shown a strong evidence of association between higher volumes and better outcomes. The quality of the available reviews can be considered good for the consistency of the results between the studies and for the strength of the association; however, this does not mean that the included studies are of good quality. Analyzing national data, potential confounders, including age and comorbidities, have been considered. The systematic review of the literature does not permit to identify predefined volume thresholds. The analysis of national data shows a strong improvement in outcomes in the first part of the curve (from very low to higher volumes) for most conditions. In some cases, the improvement in outcomes remains gradual or constant with the increasing volume of care; in other, the analysis could allow the identification of threshold values beyond which the outcome does not further improve. However, a good knowledge of the relationship between effectiveness of treatments and costs, the geographical distribution and the accessibility to healthcare services are necessary to choose the minimum volumes of care, under which specific health procedures could not been provided in the NHS. Some potential biases due to the use of information systems data should also be considered. The different way of coding among hospitals could lead to a different selection of cases for some conditions. Regarding the definition of the exposure (volume of care), a possible bias could result from misclassification of health providers with high volume of activity. Performing the intervention in different departments/ units of the same hospital would result in an overestimation of the volume of care measured for hospital rather than for department/unit. For the conditions with a further fragmentation within the same structure, the association between volumes of discharge department and outcomes has also been evaluated. In this case, the two curves were different. The limit is to attribute the outcome to the discharge unit, which in case of surgery may not be the intervention unit. A similar bias could occur if the main determinant of the outcome of treatment was the caseload of each surgeon. The results of the analysis may be biased when different operators in the same hospital/unit carried out the same procedure. In any case, the observed association between volumes and outcome is very strong, and it is unlikely to be attributable to biases of the study design. Another aspect on which there is still little evidence is the interaction between volume of the hospital and of the surgeon. A MEDICARE study suggests that in some conditions, especially for specialized surgery, the effect of the surgeon's volume of activity is different depending on the structure volume, whereas it would not differ for some less specialized surgery conditions. The data here presented still show extremely fragmented volumes of both clinical and surgical areas, with a predominance of very low volume structures. Health systems operate, by definition, in a context of limited resources, especially when the amount of resources to allocate to the health system is reduced. In such conditions, the rationalization of the organization of health services based on the volume of care may make resources available to improve the effectiveness of interventions. The identification and certification of services and providers with high volume of activity can help to reduce differences in the access to non-effective procedures. To produce additional evidence to guide the reorganization of the national healthcare system, it will be necessary to design further primary studies to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of policies aimed at concentrating interventions in structures with high volumes of activity.

Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valve disease and transcatheter aortic valve replacement is considered as an alternative to surgical valve replacement or to medical treatment in inoperable or high-risk patients, but it is not suitable for all patients with severe aortic stenosis, taking into account also the high cost associated., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis via percutaneous, (transfemoral, or endovascular approach) or surgically (transapical, or transventricular) approach., Results: The present review includes 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 29 observational studies. We combined the outcomes from the individual trials through meta-analysis where possible. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome using the GRADE system. Regarding TAVI vs. standard surgery, there were no significant differences between TAVI and conventional surgery for mortality at 1 year or more, the frequency of stroke, and heart attack; for mortality at 30 days, no difference was observed in RCTs and the result was in favor of TAVI in observational studies. Another outcome in favor of TAVI was the frequency of major bleeding that was significantly lower in patients treated with TAVI. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Regarding TAVI vs. medical therapy, for the outcome death at 1 year or more, if we consider the RCTs, the results are favorable to TAVI, while in observational studies no significant differences were observed between the two interventions. In contrast, for the outcome mortality at 30 days, in RCTs no significant differences between the two interventions were observed, while the results were favorable to TAVI in observational studies. For the frequency of stroke in the single RCT that reported this outcome, it was significantly lower in patients treated with medical therapy, with no significant differences in the results of observational studies. The results related to the frequency of heart attack from observational studies are in favor of TAVI. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low., Conclusions: Candidates for TAVI are those patients for which conventional open-heart surgery is not recommended because of the risk due to advanced age or important comorbidities.

Background and Objective: The Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group aims to produce, update, and disseminate systematic reviews on the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of problematic drug and alcohol use. This paper describes what the Group has done since the 1990s to produce evidence to guide policy, practice, and research., Method: We analyze the coverage of topics by our reviews, the body of studies they have included, and the evidence produced., Results: By July 2013, the Group had published 67 reviews, with 376 authors from 25 different countries. These reviews included 906 studies, of 3061 studies considered for inclusion. Most (90%) included studies were randomized trials. Considering the 'Implications for practice' section of each review, 41% interventions were classified as 'do it', 15% as 'do not do', and 44% as 'do only in research'. These proportions varied according to the type of substance of abuse studied. The proportion of 'do it' interventions were 46% for alcohol, 40% for opioids, 20% for psychostimulants, 40% for polydrugs, and 62% for prevention., Conclusion: Cochrane Reviews produced by the Drugs and Alcohol Group provide evidence on the effectiveness of several interventions, and identify areas of uncertainty where new research is needed., (© 2013 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)