OBJECTIVE: Human recombinant insulin is currently the only therapy for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D), although not always efficient for the glycemic control of these individuals. The interrelation between the gut microbiome and the glycemic control of apparently healthy populations, as well as various populations with diabetes, is undeniable. Probiotics are biotherapeutics that deliver active components to various targets, primarily the gastrointestinal tract. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effect of the administration of probiotics on the glycemic control of pediatric and adolescent individuals with T1D.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials employing the administration of probiotics in children and adolescents with T1D (with ≥10 individuals per treatment arm), written in English, providing parameters of glycemic control, such as mean glucose concentrations and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), were deemed eligible.
RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in six papers with contradictory findings. Ultimately, five studies of acceptable quality, comprising 388 children and adolescents with T1D, were included in the meta-analysis. Employing a random and fixed effects model revealed statistically significant negative effect sizes of probiotics on the glycemic control of those individuals, i.e., higher concentrations of glucose and HbA1c than controls.
CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with T1D who received probiotics demonstrated worse glycemic control than controls after the intervention. Adequately powered studies, with extended follow-up periods, along with monitoring of compliance and employing the proper strains, are required to unravel the mechanisms of action and the relative effects of probiotics, particularly concerning diabetes-related complications and metabolic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantitatively analyse nortriptyline\'s analgesic potency, safety and tolerability.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: The systematic search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed in February 2023.
METHODS: Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of nortriptyline in reducing pain scores (open-label studies and comparisons of nortriptyline with placebo or other analgesics) in different pain types were included.
METHODS: The data extraction procedure and the screening phases were carried out based on predetermined eligibility criteria. To pool the data, the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standardised mean change (SMC) methods, along with random-effect and fixed-effect meta-analysis, were used. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration method, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to measure the certainty of the results.
RESULTS: 14 of the initial 648 studies were eventually imported. Nortriptyline was reported to significantly reduce pain severity in chronic low back pain, painful symptoms in major depressive disorder, neuropathy, chronic pelvic pain and neuropathic corneal pain. However, it was not superior to placebo in fibromyalgia and knee osteoarthritis. In comparison to placebo and various alternative analgesics, the pooled SMD for lowering pain scores was 0.43 (0.23-0.64) and -0.18 (-0.39 to 0.03), respectively. In the pretreatment and post-treatment analyses, the pooled SMC was -1.20 (-1.48 to -0.93). Although constipation and xerostomia were the most commonly reported side effects, all references indicated that the adverse events were well tolerated at the administered dosages.
CONCLUSIONS: While nortriptyline is effective in some chronic pains, such as neuropathies, it lacks efficacy in some other chronic pains, such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Nortriptyline is well tolerated when administered in doses intended for its analgesic effects. Moreover, several studies suggested that the analgesic effects of nortriptyline are comparable to those of amitriptyline and gabapentin.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points).
RESULTS: We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs.
METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted.
BACKGROUND: This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023454965.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations.
METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool.
RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed.
BACKGROUND: osf.io/fbex4.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacovigilance databases play a critical role in monitoring drug safety. The duplication of reports in pharmacovigilance databases, however, undermines their data integrity. This scoping review sought to provide a comprehensive understanding of duplication in pharmacovigilance databases worldwide.
METHODS: A scoping review.
METHODS: Reviewers comprehensively searched the literature in PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar and other relevant websites.
METHODS: Peer-reviewed publications and grey literature, without language restriction, describing duplication and/or methods relevant to duplication in pharmacovigilance databases from inception to 1 September 2023.
METHODS: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and conformed with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One reviewer extracted the data and performed descriptive analysis, which the second reviewer assessed. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus or in consultation with a third reviewer.
RESULTS: We screened 22 745 unique titles and 156 were eligible for full-text review. Of the 156 titles, 58 (47 peer-reviewed; 11 grey literature) fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the scoping review. Included titles addressed the extent (5 papers), prevention strategies (15 papers), causes (32 papers), detection methods (25 papers), management strategies (24 papers) and implications (14 papers) of duplication in pharmacovigilance databases. The papers overlapped, discussing more than one field. Advances in artificial intelligence, particularly natural language processing, hold promise in enhancing the efficiency and precision of deduplication of large and complex pharmacovigilance databases.
CONCLUSIONS: Duplication in pharmacovigilance databases compromises risk assessment and decision-making, potentially threatening patient safety. Therefore, efficient duplicate prevention, detection and management are essential for more reliable pharmacovigilance data. To minimise duplication, consistent use of worldwide unique identifiers as the key case identifiers is recommended alongside recent advances in artificial intelligence.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.
METHODS: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.
METHODS: We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.
RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42022369850.

The landscape of medical treatments is undergoing a transformative shift. Precision medicine has ushered in a revolutionary era in healthcare by individualizing diagnostics and treatments according to each patient\'s uniquely evolving health status. This groundbreaking method of tailoring disease prevention and treatment considers individual variations in genes, environments, and lifestyles. The goal of precision medicine is to target the \"five rights\": the right patient, the right drug, the right time, the right dose, and the right route. In this pursuit, in silico techniques have emerged as an anchor, driving precision medicine forward and making this a realistic and promising avenue for personalized therapies. With the advancements in high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies, genomic data, including genetic variants and their interactions with each other and the environment, can be incorporated into clinical decision-making. Pharmacometrics, gathering pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data, and mathematical models further contribute to drug optimization, drug behavior prediction, and drug-drug interaction identification. Digital health, wearables, and computational tools offer continuous monitoring and real-time data collection, enabling treatment adjustments. Furthermore, the incorporation of extensive datasets in computational tools, such as electronic health records (EHRs) and omics data, is also another pathway to acquire meaningful information in this field. Although they are fairly new, machine learning (ML) algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) techniques are also resources researchers use to analyze big data and develop predictive models. This review explores the interplay of these multiple in silico approaches in advancing precision medicine and fostering individual healthcare. Despite intrinsic challenges, such as ethical considerations, data protection, and the need for more comprehensive research, this marks a new era of patient-centered healthcare. Innovative in silico techniques hold the potential to reshape the future of medicine for generations to come.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists provide a spectrum of services and comprehensive medication management for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs) with many providing timely and increased access to care for patients. Prior studies have evaluated other healthcare professionals\' attitudes, knowledge and practice in regard to SUD treatment and harm reduction services. However, no reviews to date summarise the available literature on the attitudes, knowledge and practice in regard to SUD treatment and harm reduction services from the pharmacist perspective. This scoping review aims to systematically map the extent, range and nature of available evidence and identify and describe gaps in knowledge, practice and attitudes towards SUD treatment among pharmacists with the goal of providing information for meaningful integration of pharmacists into SUD care.
METHODS: We will use the framework proposed by Arksey and O\'Malley (2005) updated with recommendations by Levac et al (2010) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (2020). The protocol is registered via Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/92dek). We will search for peer-reviewed literature containing empirical evidence investigating SUD treatment or harm reduction with outcomes pertaining to the knowledge, practice or attitudes of pharmacists. Findings will be guided and assessed by research objectives and summarised using descriptive statistics and thematically for quantitative and qualitative findings, respectively. This review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews.
BACKGROUND: Our findings will provide crucial information and support for future interventions and programmes which aim to meaningfully integrate pharmacists into SUD care. We will disseminate findings at conferences and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, we will integrate feedback on search strategy, data extraction and our dissemination approach from multidisciplinary collaborators including those within our team\'s institution and outside experts with clinical or administrative knowledge in SUD care.

BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of adult patients in the clinical setting report to be allergic to penicillin. However, in most cases, penicillin allergy is not confirmed. Due to the negative aspects associated with erroneous penicillin allergy, the implementation of active delabelling processes for penicillin allergy is an important part of antibiotic stewardship programmes. Depending on the clinical setting, different factors need to be considered during implementation. This review examines the effectiveness of different delabelling interventions and summarises components and structures that facilitate, support or constrain structured penicillin allergy delabelling.
METHODS: This review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on any intervention to identify, assess or rule out uncertain penicillin allergy. To improve completeness, two further databases are also searched for grey literature. Study design, intervention type, professional groups involved, effectiveness, limitations, barriers, facilitating factors, clinical setting and associated regulatory factors will be extracted and analysed. In addition, exclusion criteria for participation in the delabelling intervention and criteria for not delabelling penicillin allergy will be summarised. In case of failed protocols, these are highlighted and quantitatively analysed if possible. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening process and data extraction. Discordant decisions will be resolved through review by a third reviewer. Bias assessment of the individual studies will be performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
BACKGROUND: Because individual patient-related data are not analysed, an ethical approval is not required. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.