Background Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID‐19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID‐19 and for preventing SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in‐between publication of review updates. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022. This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. Selection criteria Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID‐19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in post‐exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, development of COVID‐19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially‐disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Main results As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID‐19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir p...

Background Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 treatment is conflicting. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (postexposure prophylaxis). Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Co‐interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate‐to‐severe COVID‐19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID‐19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (outcomes: SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, development of COVID‐19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). Main results We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non‐randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID‐19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID‐19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double‐bli...

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false.Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.

Background: COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. Results: Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86–1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.53–4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.38–1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86–1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.15–2.74). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.

Purpose of reviewWith first research reports dating back to the 1970s, the important role of anxiety in the perioperative period has been recognized for a long time and remains in effect. Recent findingsThe global pooled prevalence of preoperative anxiety among 14 000 surgical patients was reported to be 48%. The underlying fears among surgical patients include: fear of surgical complications, worry about the duration and degree of disability after the procedure, concerns about general anesthesia and the associated loss of control, as well as fear of waking up and experiencing discomfort and pain during or after surgery. The type and invasiveness of the planned procedure contribute to differences in preoperative anxiety levels. While preoperative anxiety is higher in younger, female patients as well as in those with a high need for information, prior exposure to anesthesia or surgery was associated with lower anxiety levels. High levels of preoperative anxiety may lead to poor postoperative pain control and increased morbidity. Due to adverse effects such as delirium, the use of benzodiazepines to manage preoperative anxiety has decreased. SummaryPreoperative anxiety remains a critical issue in the perioperative period. Further research is needed to develop effective management strategies, which may need to be tailored to the patient's individual need.

BackgroundOral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. ObjectivesTo assess the e icacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses.To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022. This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. Selection criteriaStudies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19 (Review)

No abstract

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or contain errors. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a Research Integrity Assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RIA was piloted and used in updating this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, plausible authorship, sufficient reporting of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing Risk of Bias aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.