Objective In 2015, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network (CanVasc) created recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAV) in Canada. The current update aimed to revise existing recommendations and create additional recommendations, as needed, based on a review of new available evidence. Methods A needs assessment survey of CanVasc members informed questions for an updated systematic literature review (publications spanning May 2014-September 2019) using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane. New and revised recommendations were developed and categorized according to the level of evidence and strength of each recommendation. The CanVasc working group used a two-step modified Delphi procedure to reach >80% consensus on the inclusion, wording and grading of each new and revised recommendation. Results Eleven new and 16 revised recommendations were created, and 12 original (2015) recommendations were retained. New and revised recommendations are discussed in detail within this document. Five original recommendations were removed, of which 4 were incorporated into the explanatory text. The supplementary appendix for practical use was revised to reflect the updated recommendations. Conclusion The 2020 updated recommendations provide rheumatologists, nephrologists, and other specialists caring for patients with AAV in Canada with new management guidance, based on current evidence and consensus from Canadian experts.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research. Patient consent for publication Not required.Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

Objective To develop best practice statements for the provision of virtual care in adult and pediatric rheumatology for the Canadian Rheumatology Association's (CRA) Telehealth Working Group (TWG). Methods Four members of the TWG representing adult, pediatric, university-based and community rheumatology practices defined the scope of the project. A rapid literature review was conducted between April-May 2021 of existing systematic reviews, policy documents and published literature and abstracts on the topic. The review informed a candidate set of 7 statements and a supporting document. The statements were submitted to a 3-round (R) modified Delphi process with 22 panelists recruited through the CRA and patient advocacy organizations. Panelists rated the importance and feasibility of the statements on a Likert scale of 1-9. Statements with final median ratings between 7-9 with no disagreement were retained in the final set. Results 21 (95%) panelists participated in R1, 15 (71%) in R2 and 18 (82%) in R3. All but one statement met inclusion criteria during R1. Revisions were made to 5/7 statements following R2 and an additional statement was added. All statements met inclusion criteria following R3. The statements addressed the following themes in the provision of virtual care: adherence to existing standards and regulations, appropriateness, consent, physical examination, patient-reported outcomes, use in addition to in-person visits, and complex co-management of disease. Conclusion The best practice statements represent a starting point for advancing virtual care in rheumatology. Future educational efforts to help implement these best practices and research to address identified knowledge gaps are planned.

ImportanceDespite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients.Data SourcesPubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022.Study SelectionIncluded studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection.Data Extraction and SynthesisIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.Main Outcomes and MeasuresHospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs.ResultsOf 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6295 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.6% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.47-1.27; RD, −0.14%; 95% CI, −0.32% to 0.16%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.19-5.13) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.37-2.17). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28-2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-1.08).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.