Royal Hampshire County Hospital

Abstract The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 1,2 , host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases 3–7 . They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.

A total of 52 jaundiced elderly patients who had malignant obstruction of the distal common bile duct and who required palliative biliary decompression were randomized to receive either an endoscopically placed biliary endoprosthesis (10 French gauge) or conventional surgical bypass. Patients within the two treatment groups were well matched and 51 were followed until their death. Patients treated with endoprosthesis had a significantly shorter initial hospital stay than those treated surgically. In the long term, overall survival in the two groups was similar and jaundice was relieved in over 90 per cent of patients. Despite more re-admissions to hospital for those patients treated endoscopically, the total time spent in hospital still remained significantly shorter in this treatment group compared with those subjected to surgery. The endoscopically placed biliary endoprosthesis is a valuable alternative to conventional surgical bypass in the palliation of extrahepatic biliary obstruction.

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are a common cause of morbidity in both the community and the hospital. An SSTI is classified as complicated if the infection has spread to the deeper soft tissues, if surgical intervention is necessary, or if the patient has a comorbid condition hindering treatment response (e.g., diabetes mellitus or human immunodeficiency virus). The purpose of this study was to compare linezolid to vancomycin in the treatment of suspected or proven methicillin-resistant gram-positive complicated SSTIs (CSSTIs) requiring hospitalization. This was a randomized, open-label, comparator-controlled, multicenter, multinational study that included patients with suspected or proven methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections that involved substantial areas of skin or deeper soft tissues, such as cellulitis, abscesses, infected ulcers, or burns (<10% of total body surface area). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive linezolid (600 mg) every 12 h either intravenously (i.v.) or orally or vancomycin (1 g) every 12 h i.v. In the intent-to-treat population, 92.2% and 88.5% of patients treated with linezolid and vancomycin, respectively, were clinically cured at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit (P=0.057). Linezolid outcomes (124/140 patients or 88.6%) were superior to vancomycin outcomes (97/145 patients or 66.9%) at the TOC visit for patients with MRSA infections (P<0.001). Drug-related adverse events were reported in similar numbers in both the linezolid and the vancomycin arms of the trial. The results of this study demonstrate that linezolid therapy is well tolerated, equivalent to vancomycin in treating CSSTIs, and superior to vancomycin in the treatment of CSSTIs due to MRSA.

BACKGROUND: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a complication of acute herpes zoster, which is emerging as a preferred clinical trial model for chronic neuropathic pain. Although there are published meta-analyses of analgesic therapy in PHN, and neuropathic pain in general, the evidence base has been substantially enhanced by the recent publication of several major trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for both efficacy and adverse events of analgesic therapy for PHN. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We systematically searched databases (MEDLINE 1966-2004, EMBASE 1988-2004, CINAHL 1982-2002, and PubMed [29 October 2004]) for trials of PHN. We also searched references of retrieved studies and review articles for further trials. We included trials that examined adult patients with PHN of greater duration than 3 mo, that were blinded, randomised, and had at least one measure of pain outcome. Dichotomous pain outcome data were extracted for 50% decrease in baseline pain using a hierarchy of pain/pain-relief measurement tools. Where available, dichotomous data were also collected for adverse events. Calculated estimates of efficacy included relative benefit and number needed to treat. Of 62 studies identified, 35 were randomised controlled trials. Of these, 31 were placebo controlled and suitable for meta-analysis, from which it was possible to extract dichotomous efficacy outcome data from 25. This meta-analysis revealed that there is evidence to support the use of the following orally administered therapies: tricyclic antidepressants, "strong" opioids, gabapentin, tramadol, and pregabalin. Topical therapies associated with efficacy were lidocaine 5% patch and capsaicin. Finally, a single study of spinal intrathecal administration of lidocaine and methyl prednisolone demonstrated efficacy, although this has yet to be replicated. Data suggest that the following therapies are not associated with efficacy in PHN: certain NMDA receptor antagonists (e.g., oral memantine, oral dextromethorphan, intravenous ketamine), codeine, ibuprofen, lorazepam, certain 5HT1 receptor agonists, and acyclovir. Topical administration of benzydamine, diclofenac/diethyl ether, and vincristine (iontophoresis) are similarly not associated with efficacy, nor are intrathecal administration of lidocaine alone or epidural administration of lidocaine and methylprednisolone, intravenous therapy with lidocaine, subcutaneous injection of Cronassial, or acupuncture. However, many of the trials that demonstrated a lack of efficacy represented comparatively low numbers of patient episodes or were single-dose studies, so it may be appropriate to regard such interventions as "not yet adequately tested" rather than demonstrating "no evidence of efficacy." Topical aspirin/diethyl ether has not been adequately tested. CONCLUSION: The evidence base supports the oral use of tricyclic antidepressants, certain opioids, and gabapentinoids in PHN. Topical therapy with lidocaine patches and capsaicin is similarly supported. Intrathecal administration of methylprednisolone appears to be associated with high efficacy, but its safety requires further evaluation.

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are common, and complicated SSTIs (cSSTIs) are the more extreme end of this clinical spectrum, encompassing a range of clinical presentations such as deep-seated infection, a requirement for surgical intervention, the presence of systemic signs of sepsis, the presence of complicating co-morbidities, accompanying neutropenia, accompanying ischaemia, tissue necrosis, burns and bites. Staphy-lococcus aureus is the commonest cause of SSTI across all continents, although its epidemiology in terms of causative strains and antibiotic susceptibility can no longer be predicted with accuracy. The epidemiology of community-acquired and healthcare-acquired strains is constantly shifting and this presents challenges in the choice of empirical antibiotic therapy. Toxin production, particularly with Panton–Valentine leucocidin, may complicate the presentation still further. Polymicrobial infection with Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms and anaerobes may occur in infections approximating the rectum or genital tract and in diabetic foot infections and burns. Successful management of cSSTI involves prompt recognition, timely surgical debridement or drainage, resuscitation if required and appropriate antibiotic therapy. The mainstays of treatment are the penicillins, cephalosporins, clindamycin and co-trimoxazole. b-Lactam/b-lactamase inhibitor combinations are indicated for polymicrobial infection. A range of new agents for the treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections have compared favourably with the glycopeptides and some have distinct pharmacokinetic advantages. These include linezolid, daptomycin and tigecycline. The latter and fluoroquinolones with enhanced anti-Gram-positive activity such as moxifloxacin are better suited for polymicrobial infection.

Now admittedly the patient in question had undergone a life-saving operation in a brand new hospital staffed by some wonderful and talented people. However, a pain score of 6/10 is not mild, but borderline between moderate and severe, and the patient did need something for that. Was the nurse ignorant of what pain scores meant, or was it just that caring professionals typically underestimate patients' pain 1? Both these questions are deserving of research, but for this patient, the only point is that the system failed him, and for him the reasons behind the failure were of little interest. He had pain that was borderline severe, and it was not treated. This is not uncommon. A fairly recent survey of Italian hospital wards came to the hardly original conclusion that those wards in which less analgesic was prescribed had higher rates of patients experiencing severe pain than those where more analgesics were prescribed 2; Fig. 1 shows the clear inverse relationship between the presence of severe pain and the percentage of patients treated for their pain. There is a wealth of evidence that pain is poorly treated, and that significant proportions of patients suffer from moderate or severe pain, whether it is acute pain in hospital 3 or chronic pain in the community 4, 5. Barriers to progress are many and varied, but one particular and important barrier is a degree of confusion about pain scoring systems and what they mean. How does a simple categorical verbal rating system (no pain, mild, moderate, severe) relate to a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) or an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS)? Does it matter what the anchors are at each end? Where are the boundaries for moderate or severe pain? What is the minimal clinically significant difference? Does it matter whether the scale has been ‘validated’ in Welsh, or Farsi, or Urdu? All of which makes for terrific grist for the mill of grant applications, but does not make things easy for clinical practice, because it suggests that there is considerable uncertainty over pain measurement. Pain scales continue to proliferate, not least because they can be copyrighted and significant sums paid to use them in clinical trials, as do academic arguments about whether, on average, a few millimetres change on a 100-mm scale represents a useful outcome 6. One outcome of all this is additional uncertainty over which scale is ‘right’. All this academic angst is unimportant for everyday practice, where the simple question is whether pain is present at an unacceptable level or not. It may be time to consider a divorce between all these interesting academic complexities and the theoretically simple, but practically difficult requirements for successfully treating patients with pain. The philosophical principle of ontological parsimony, rather easier understood as keeping it simple, was suggested about 700 years ago by William of Ockham, and more recently restated as the KISS principle by Kelly Johnson 7. We (the authors) are increasingly of the opinion that in measuring pain there should be a simple principle – that only ‘no worse than mild pain’ is acceptable in clinical practice, and the important practical outcome of ‘no worse than mild pain’ is the only outcome of interest to be taken from clinical trials. We are relaxed about just how ‘no worse than mild pain’ is measured, but take the view that the borderline between mild and moderate pain is about 30 mm on the 100-mm VAS 8 in acute pain or 3/10 on a 0–10 NRS. Figure 2 shows data from almost 14 000 paired observations taken at rest or on activity over a 48-h postoperative period in surgical patients that would agree with 30 mm as a cut-off point (data from 9); other analyses give similar if slightly different cut-off points 10. There is some evidence that strict adherence to ‘no worse than mild pain’ principles can lead to virtual elimination of severe pain in hospital 11. The same cut-off point works well for chronic pain in the community 12, and pain measures work at least as well as more complicated scales in conditions such as inflammatory arthritis 13. Electronic searching alone is known to retrieve only a minority of observational studies relevant to a research question 14, 15. Experience shows that broader types of searching can capture many more studies 14, 16. We therefore conducted a search to find studies informing on the three main themes above. These searches comprised a series of different free text searches of PubMed (to November 2012), with follow-up on any potentially useful publication using the ‘related citation’ facility. For useful publications, we also checked on citations of that publication using Google Scholar™. In addition to electronic searches, retrieved articles were read for any other sources of data, as were general review articles and book chapters. When asked what they would consider treatment success, patients with chronic pain specify a large reduction in pain intensity, by 50% or more 17-19. Their ideal outcome is pain intensity of 3/10 or below on a 0–10 NRS, or its equivalent when pain is rated categorically, i.e. no worse than mild pain. They also want substantial reductions in fatigue, distress and the loss of quality of life that accompanies chronic pain. Chronic pain patients want mean decrements in excess of 50% on measures of interference on either the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) 20. Patients in this latter study thought that an acceptable level of pain was around 3–4/10, no worse than mild pain. Much the same is true in migraine, where the outcome specified is that of complete pain relief 21. Patients would therefore agree that a clinically important difference in pain outcomes would be at least the 33% level suggested in breakthrough pain 22, the 30/100 mm pain reduction defined as adequate pain control in acute pain 23, or a more than 40 mm reduction in pain defined as much better in musculoskeletal pain 24. In fibromyalgia, pain severity reductions of about 40% were argued to be clinically important 25. For painful diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia, patients describing themselves as much or very much better typically had pain intensity reductions of 40% or more 26. These are far greater than the minimally important difference of a 6% reduction in pain suggested by rheumatoid arthritis patients 27. Pain outcomes in trials are usually described in terms of change in pain, rather than pain level at the end of a trial. As Fig. 3 demonstrates, patients can be improvement responders (50% pain reduction), state responders (have ‘no worse than mild pain’, below 30/100 mm on a 100-mm VAS), or both, or neither. There is potential complexity here, and arguments could be raised about whether pain improvement response or low pain state is better, or what ‘better’ means in this context. However, patients consistently say, when asked, that the response they want is either large reductions in pain intensity or being in a low pain state (no worse than mild pain), and ideally both, so these are patient reported outcome measures we need to take seriously. The evidence we have is that low pain state, no worse than mild pain, is consistently rated highly by patients in clinical trials when validated against global questions of response. In fibromyalgia, for example, being ‘very much improved’ at the end of trials lasting 8–14 weeks was associated with a pain score of 30/100 mm or below in 1858 completers (Fig. 4; data from 28). In the overall population of 2575 patients starting on treatment for fibromyalgia, 73% were non-responders by virtue of withdrawing from treatment or because of inadequate pain relief; only 27% were state responders only, improvement responders only, or both state and improvement responders (Fig. 5). There are indications that some of the more complex composite outcomes are no more informative than straightforward pain scores or patient global rating in chronic pain 29, although it is clearly the case that pain itself is not the only issue for patients with chronic pain 17, 30. In rheumatology, the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) has been defined as the value beyond which patients consider themselves well. For osteoarthritis, the junction between satisfactory and unsatisfactory was about 32/100 mm 31, and similar results were obtained with numerical rating and function scales 32. In acute pain also, satisfaction is associated with pain scores generally below 30/100 mm, and low analgesic requirement using intravenous fentanyl via patient-controlled analgesia 9. In chronic pain, responders tend to keep being responders. Clinical experience is that responders typically show temporal stability in their response, as concluded by studies to specifically test consistency in chronic pain 33 and musculoskeletal pain 34. In fibromyalgia a long-term, enriched enrolment, randomised withdrawal study emphasised that individual response status was stable over six months 35. In chronic low back pain, initial responders to duloxetine had further significant improvement in pain and other outcomes for another 41 weeks 36. And in osteoarthritis, responders at two weeks overwhelmingly were responders at 12 weeks 37, and up to one year 38. While more evidence would be welcomed, the emerging picture is that ongoing response over the long term appears to occur in those who respond initially. Moreover, current evidence indicates that in osteoarthritis 39 and fibromyalgia 28 response, or lack of response, is largely determined within 2–4 weeks from the start of treatment. We are beholden to averages. As soon as we begin to learn about statistics, we are presented with a Gaussian distribution, and thereafter the implication is that distributions are always Gaussian, and the average is something applying – more or less – to most people. And that is why pain studies will almost always tell us the average pain score, or the average change in pain score, or the average postoperative analgesic requirement. The trouble is that while the world may be Gaussian for many things – height, for instance – it isn't Gaussian for others, like hair or eye colour. Nor is it Gaussian for pain or for response to analgesics. For example, while some people have moderate or severe pain soon after surgery, for many, pain is delayed by many hours, and about one in 20 may not get pain at all 40. Distributions other than Gaussian are found for many measures associated with pain. For example, analgesic consumption after surgery follows a highly skewed distribution in which mean, median, and mode are all very different from one another 41. However, it is in the response to analgesics in acute and chronic pain that we find the largest deviation from Gaussian distributions. Two classic examples are the response to analgesics in acute postoperative pain or osteoarthritis (Fig. 6). They have a clearly bimodal distribution with placebo or active drug, with some people getting a very good response, whereas others get virtually none 39, 42; few patients in either study could be described as average. The example shown in acute pain is for 120 mg etoricoxib, one of the most effective analgesics in this pain model, where good responses predominate. For most other analgesics at commonly used doses, the proportion with a good response is much less than this 43. For chronic pain also, the same bimodal distribution applies as for osteoarthritis 39, ankylosing spondylitis 44, chronic low back pain 45 and migraine 46, as well as in neuropathic pain 47. All these examples have used change in pain as their measure, with a reduction of at least 50%. While there are few analyses directly relating the level of pain change to a pain score of ‘no worse than mild pain’, it is probable that this covers most patients. There are uncertainties and grey areas, as the results of analyses by improvement responders and state responders in Fig. 5 show. Interpretation at the level of the individual may not always be easy; Fig. 7 shows 200 individual patient responses over 14 weeks in patients with fibromyalgia treated with pregabalin 450 mg per day (data from 28), some of the data from which were used to calculate the results in Fig. 5. Simple inspection demonstrates that large reduction in pain and low final pain score are highly associated. While more individual patient data analyses are needed to increase our understanding (the academic viewpoint), the broad message is that very large decrements in pain will result in a low pain state (the pragmatic take home message). In acute pain, inadequate pain management has substantial consequences for patients, with high pain scores associated with lower quality of life measures some four weeks after surgery 48, 49. Higher pain scores substantially impaired patients' sleep, sexual function and their ability to perform physical activities during the postoperative period 50, 51. It is also the case that there is a direct relationship between higher average postoperative pain levels and patient dissatisfaction with their postoperative experience 9. However, it remains unclear whether techniques to improve postoperative pain result in improved sleep, function and quality of life 52. We sought studies linking pain scores changes with quality of life changes in chronic pain treatment in a literature review; it found 13 studies with about 8000 patients treated with a variety of drugs for different chronic pain conditions (Table 1). Each individual study reported measurements of quality of life or function appropriate to the condition studied. The majority of the studies were individual patient analyses of randomised trials of appropriate duration for the condition being treated 53-64; one was a small trial lasting four weeks 65. Two long-duration prospective cohort studies (1387 patients) also provided some data 66, 67. Appropriate study duration is one important marker of clinical trial validity, as is the use of appropriate imputation methods 68, 69. Conditions studied included migraine, fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic low back pain and ankylosing spondylitis. Treatments used included tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, tramadol/paracetamol, topical diclofenac, topiramate, pregabalin, duloxetine and placebo. Each study reported a positive association between good pain relief and measures such as quality of life, activities of daily living, function, work, enjoyment of life, global impression of benefit, depression, mood, sleep and fatigue (Table 1). A consistent finding was improvement in quality of life with successful treatment. Figure 8 shows the patterns of change in Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) sections with responders experiencing at least 50% pain intensity reduction in fibromyalgia 59. The magnitude of the changes reported is far from trivial. For example, the largest individual patient analysis in fibromyalgia, with almost a third of the total number of patients providing evidence of an additional benefit of effective pain treatment, reports that pain intensity reduction of 50% or more is associated with reversion towards population norm values for sleep, fatigue, depression, with a trend for the SF-36 section scores to return towards the population normative values 59. Quality of life benefits were also significant, with EuroQol health status (EQ-5D) score increases over one year of 0.22 with TNF antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis 64, 0.35 for ≥ 50% pain intensity reduction in painful diabetic neuropathy 58 and a one-year quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.11 for the same outcome in fibromyalgia (Fig. 9). In an analysis of tapentadol trials, patients who tolerated the treatment with tapentadol or oxycodone and completed the trial (and therefore likely to be those with good pain benefit) had EQ-5D average increments of 0.31 64. Similar benefits are likely to accrue from successful non-drug interventions in pain 70. A systematic review of QALYs for estimating effectiveness of healthcare reported the utility gains over six months to one year for various different interventions 71. Of the 31 examples reported where interventions actually worked, and where there were appropriate utility measures reported, most had one-year utilities of 0.1 or below. Some (total hip replacement, cochlear implants in children or profoundly deaf adults, TNF antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis) delivered large one-year gains of 0.2 or above, but only 9/31 (29%) had one-year gains above 0.1. The quality of life or utility gains found with successful treatment of chronic pain are clearly at least comparable, and often superior. It is important to note that while all the studies found reported at least one positive association between effective pain treatment and some aspect of quality of life or functioning, no study was found reporting research showing the absence of any link between pain relief and benefit. It is also important to note that these studies consistently report the lack of benefits in quality of life, functioning, work, sleep, or depression in the absence of good pain relief. The message is that reducing chronic pain to levels equivalent to ‘no worse than mild pain’ carries significant health and economic benefits to patients. It should normally be both more affordable and probably cost saving, compared with ineffective treatment. Improved sleep, reduced depression, better quality of life and greater ability to function and work come with good pain relief; without pain relief, there were no improvements in these outcomes. The strength of the evidence is such as to indicate that any patient-centred treatment programme that does not include the achievement of adequate pain relief as part of its goals is likely to fail to deliver on expected benefits. However, treating pain is clearly not easy; if it were, reports of moderate or severe acute pain in 44% of patients in hospital in the USA 72 and 91% with chronic pain living in the community in Australia 12 would not be so common. Investigations into the barriers to adequate treatment of acute pain suggest a variety of possible problems 73, but investigations into different levels of performance between centres come to no particular conclusion 74. Guidelines for treatment of chronic pain are less or more restrictive regarding the range of therapies allowed; for example, guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis pain 75 allow a broad range of therapies to be tried, whereas for neuropathic pain, available therapies are limited to just a few 76. It is unquestionable that there are difficulties in treating pain, regardless of its origin and mechanism. The growth in so-called evidence is not necessarily helping, as we in all about treatment of musculoskeletal pain, good evidence that its benefits over placebo are clinical whereas good evidence that a simple, effective and for in works well is largely while different to treatment are for particular or particular patients, the of treatment can be the of the evidence being It should be ‘no worse than mild pain’ as by the patient, not to professionals often get it most often by the pain the is not or the evidence is the of ‘no worse than mild pain’ will not have been The academic is to have trial data using ‘no worse than mild pain’ as an to clinical trial results to be useful for clinical in understanding and how not to be by are very and while they use outcomes of at least 50% pain intensity reduction rather than ‘no worse than mild pain’, the two are probably The practical is to improve treatment of acute and chronic pain. There are many to and many and professionals to use those for the patients in need of pain relief. It is not so much the that are but a clear understanding of the of treatment. This outcome of ‘no worse than mild pain’ is simple to and and is as it can be with one with the measures describing change would need at least two outcome worse than mild pain should be and should be a of analgesic or treatment We the many and from around the who have our and on work we have There was no for this came from the Pain

BACKGROUND: This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes-including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)-in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease.

Mucosal changes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are characterized by ulcerative lesions accompanied by prominent cellular infiltrates in the bowel wall. Chemokines are chemotactic cytokines that are able to promote leukocyte migration to areas of inflammation and are also able to initiate cell activation events. They have recently been implicated in the pathophysiology of many disease states. The aim of this study was to detail the degree and distribution of specific chemokines, interleukin (IL)-8, monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, -2, and -3, and macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1alpha and -1beta, in IBD mucosa. Thirty-nine patients were included, ten controls, 20 ulcerative colitis (UC), and nine Crohn's disease (CD), with a range of disease activity. Colonic mucosal biopsies were collected from UC, CD, and control patients and embedded in glycol methacrylate. Two-micrometre-thick sections were cut and stained using immunohistochemistry for chemokine protein expression. Sections were analysed using a light microscope. Expression of all types of chemokine protein was detected in colonic mucosa from both control and IBD patients. Patterns of staining between IBD patients and controls differed significantly, but CD and UC patients demonstrated similar patterns of staining. Individual chemokine expression was found to be significantly up-regulated in IBD when patients were compared with the non-diseased group in all areas of the mucosal sections. Up-regulated chemokine expression correlated with increasing activity of the disease. It is concluded that human colonic chemokine expression is non-selectively up-regulated in IBD. The results supported the hypothesis that the degree of local inflammation and tissue damage in UC and CD is dependent on local expression of specific chemokines within IBD tissues.

Primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) is a classical autoimmune liver disease for which effective immunomodulatory therapy is lacking. Here we perform meta-analyses of discovery data sets from genome-wide association studies of European subjects (n=2,764 cases and 10,475 controls) followed by validation genotyping in an independent cohort (n=3,716 cases and 4,261 controls). We discover and validate six previously unknown risk loci for PBC (Pcombined<5 × 10(-8)) and used pathway analysis to identify JAK-STAT/IL12/IL27 signalling and cytokine-cytokine pathways, for which relevant therapies exist.

A multicenter, prospective study ( = 103) examined the psychological implications of women's decisions for or against breast reconstruction. Recognized measures of anxiety, depression, body image, and quality of life were completed before the operation, and 6 and 12 months later. A reduction in psychological distress over the year following the operation was evident in each surgical group (mastectomy alone or immediate or delayed reconstruction), indicating that reconstructive surgery can offer psychological benefits to some women; however, others report improved psychological functioning without this surgical procedure. In contrast to existing retrospective research, the prospective design enabled the process of adjustment during the first year after the operation to be examined. The results indicate that breast reconstruction is not a universal panacea for the emotional and psychological consequences of mastectomy. Women still reported feeling conscious of altered body image 1 year postoperatively, regardless of whether or not they had elected breast reconstruction. Health professionals should be careful of assuming that breast reconstruction necessarily confers psychological benefits compared with mastectomy alone.

BACKGROUND: Antiepileptic drugs have been used for treating different types of neuropathic pain, and sometimes fibromyalgia. Our understanding of quality standards in chronic pain trials has improved to include new sources of potential bias. Individual Cochrane reviews using these new standards have assessed individual antiepileptic drugs. An early review from this group, originally published in 1998, was titled 'Anticonvulsants for acute and chronic pain'. This overview now covers the neuropathic pain aspect of that original review, which was withdrawn in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the relative analgesic efficacy of antiepileptic drugs that have been compared with placebo in neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. METHODS: We included reviews published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to August 2013 (Issue 7). We extracted information from each review on measures of efficacy and harm, and methodological details concerning the number of participants, the duration of studies, and the imputation methods used, in order to judge potential biases in available data.We analysed efficacy data for each painful condition in three tiers, according to outcome and freedom from known sources of bias. The first tier met current best standards - at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent), without the use of last observation carried forward (LOCF) for dropouts, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, in parallel group studies with at least 200 participants lasting eight weeks or more. The second tier used data from at least 200 participants where one or more of the above conditions were not met. The third tier of evidence related to data from fewer than 200 participants, or with several important methodological problems that limited interpretation. MAIN RESULTS: No studies reported top tier results.For gabapentin and pregabalin only we found reasonably good second tier evidence for efficacy in painful diabetic neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia. In addition, for pregabalin, we found evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. Point estimates of numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTs) were in the range of 4 to 10 for the important outcome of pain intensity reduction over baseline of 50% or more.For other antiepileptic drugs there was no evidence (clonazepam, phenytoin), so little evidence that no sensible judgement could be made about efficacy (valproic acid), low quality evidence likely to be subject to a number of biases overestimating efficacy (carbamazepine), or reasonable quality evidence indicating little or no effect (lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate). Lacosamide recorded such a trivial statistical superiority over placebo that it was unreliable to conclude that it had any efficacy where there was possible substantial bias.Any benefits of treatment came with a high risk of adverse events and withdrawal because of adverse events, but serious adverse events were not significantly raised, except with oxcarbazepine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial evidence supported the use of only gabapentin and pregabalin in some neuropathic pain conditions (painful diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and central neuropathic pain) and fibromyalgia. Only a minority of people achieved acceptably good pain relief with either drug, but it is known that quality of life and function improved markedly with the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction. For other antiepileptic drugs there was no evidence, insufficient evidence, or evidence of a lack of effect; this included carbamazepine. Evidence from clinical practice and experience is that some patients can achieve good results with antiepileptics other than gabapentin or pregabalin.There is no firm evidence to answer the important pragmatic questions about which patients should have which drug, and in which order the drugs should be used. There is a clinical effectiveness research agenda to provide evidence about strategies rather than interventions, to produce the overall best results in a population, in the shortest time, and at the lowest cost to healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the effects of amitriptyline for fibromyalgia are now dealt with in a separate review.Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). It is recommended as a first line treatment in many guidelines. Neuropathic pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of chronic neuropathic pain, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own hand searched database for older studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks' duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies from the earlier review and two new studies (17 studies, 1342 participants) in seven neuropathic pain conditions. Eight cross-over studies with 302 participants had a median of 36 participants, and nine parallel group studies with 1040 participants had a median of 84 participants. Study quality was modest, though most studies were at high risk of bias due to small size.There was no first-tier or second-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating any neuropathic pain condition. Only third-tier evidence was available. For only two of seven studies reporting useful efficacy data was amitriptyline significantly better than placebo (very low quality evidence).More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 55% of participants taking amitriptyline and 36% taking placebo. The risk ratio (RR) was 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 5.2 (3.6 to 9.1) (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were rare. Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but were rarely reported (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many people with neuropathic pain. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain, but only a minority of people will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer. DESIGN: Prospective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial. SETTING: 32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Non-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes. RESULTS: 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: For patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.

BACKGROUND: Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage) and fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. These types of pain can be treated with antidepressant drugs in doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.To assess the adverse events associated with the clinical use of amitriptyline for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to September 2012, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews, and other reviews; we also used our own handsearched database for older studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using two tiers of evidence. The first tier used data meeting current best standards, where studies reported the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction over baseline (or its equivalent), without the use of last observation carried forward (LOCF) or other imputation method for dropouts, reported an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, lasted 8 to 12 weeks or longer, had a parallel-group design, and where there were at least 200 participants in the comparison. The second tier used data that failed to meet this standard and were therefore subject to potential bias. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (1437 participants) were included; they individually involved between 15 and 235 participants, only four involved over 100 participants, and the median study size was 44 participants. The median duration was six weeks. Ten studies had a cross-over design. Doses of amitriptyline were generally between 25 mg and 125 mg, and dose escalation was common.There was no top-tier evidence for amitriptyline in treating neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia.Second-tier evidence indicated no evidence of effect in cancer-related neuropathic pain or HIV-related neuropathic pain, but some evidence of effect in painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), mixed neuropathic pain, and fibromyalgia. Combining the classic neuropathic pain conditions of PDN, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and post-stroke pain with fibromyalgia for second-tier evidence, in eight studies and 687 participants, there was a statistically significant benefit (risk ratio (RR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 3.1) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4.6 (3.6 to 6.6). The analysis showed that even using this potentially biased data, only about 38% of participants benefited with amitriptyline and 16% with placebo; most participants did not get adequate pain relief. Potential benefits of amitriptyline were supported by a lower rate of lack of efficacy withdrawals; 8/153 (5%) withdrew because of lack of efficacy with amitriptyline and 14/119 (12%) with placebo.More participants experienced at least one adverse event; 64% of participants taking amitriptyline and 40% taking placebo. The RR was 1.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.7) and the number needed to treat to harm was 4.1 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.7). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for neuropathic pain for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against decades of successful treatment in many patients with neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline should continue to be used as part of the treatment of neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia, but only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. Limited information suggests that failure with one antidepressant does not mean failure with all.It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in specific neuropathic pain conditions or in fibromyalgia to prove efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Management strategies and clinical outcomes vary substantially in patients newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease. We evaluated the use of a putative prognostic biomarker to guide therapy by assessing outcomes in patients randomised to either top-down (ie, early combined immunosuppression with infliximab and immunomodulator) or accelerated step-up (conventional) treatment strategies. METHODS: PROFILE (PRedicting Outcomes For Crohn's disease using a moLecular biomarker) was a multicentre, open-label, biomarker-stratified, randomised controlled trial that enrolled adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease (Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≥7, either elevated C-reactive protein or faecal calprotectin or both, and endoscopic evidence of active inflammation). Potential participants had blood drawn to be tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures (PredictSURE-IBD assay). Following testing, patients were randomly assigned, via a secure online platform, to top-down or accelerated step-up treatment stratified by biomarker subgroup (IBDhi or IBDlo), endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other). Blinding to biomarker status was maintained throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits. Flare required active symptoms (HBI ≥5) plus raised inflammatory markers (CRP >upper limit of normal or faecal calprotectin ≥200 μg/g, or both), while remission was the converse-ie, quiescent symptoms (HBI <5) or resolved inflammatory markers (both CRP ≤ the upper limit of normal and calprotectin <200 μg/g) or both. Analyses were done in the full analysis (intention-to-treat) population. The trial has completed and is registered (ISRCTN11808228). FINDINGS: Between Dec 29, 2017, and Jan 5, 2022, 386 patients (mean age 33·6 years [SD 13·2]; 179 [46%] female, 207 [54%] male) were randomised: 193 to the top-down group and 193 to the accelerated step-up group. Median time from diagnosis to trial enrolment was 12 days (range 0-191). Primary outcome data were available for 379 participants (189 in the top-down group; 190 in the accelerated step-up group). There was no biomarker-treatment interaction effect (absolute difference 1 percentage points, 95% CI -15 to 15; p=0·944). Sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (149 [79%] of 189 patients vs 29 [15%] of 190 patients, absolute difference 64 percentage points, 95% CI 57 to 72; p<0·0001). There were fewer adverse events (including disease flares) and serious adverse events in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (adverse events: 168 vs 315; serious adverse events: 15 vs 42), with fewer complications requiring abdominal surgery (one vs ten) and no difference in serious infections (three vs eight). INTERPRETATION: Top-down treatment with combination infliximab plus immunomodulator achieved substantially better outcomes at 1 year than accelerated step-up treatment. The biomarker did not show clinical utility. Top-down treatment should be considered standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease. FUNDING: Wellcome and PredictImmune Ltd.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011. That overview considered both efficacy and adverse events, but adverse events are now dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the analgesic efficacy of individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews and assesses the reliability of available data. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions for acute pain in adults with at least moderate pain following surgery who have been given a single dose of oral analgesic. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group, had a standard title, and had as their primary outcome the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. For individual reviews, we extracted the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for this outcome for each drug/dose combination, and also the percentage of participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, the mean of mean or median time to remedication, and the percentage of participants remedicating by six, eight, 12, or 24 hours. Where there was adequate information for pairs of drug and dose (at least 200 participants, in at least two studies), we defined the addition of four comparisons of typical size (400 participants in total) with zero effect as making the result potentially subject to publication bias and therefore unreliable. MAIN RESULTS: The overview included 39 separate Cochrane Reviews with 41 analyses of single dose oral analgesics tested in acute postoperative pain models, with results from about 50,000 participants in approximately 460 individual studies. The individual reviews included only high-quality trials of standardised design, methods, and efficacy outcome reporting. No statistical comparison was undertaken.Reliable results (high quality information) were obtained for 53 pairs of drug and dose in painful postsurgical conditions; these included various fixed dose combinations, and fast acting formulations of some analgesics. NNTs varied from about 1.5 to 20 for at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours compared with placebo. The proportion of participants achieving this level of benefit varied from about 30% to over 70%, and the time to remedication varied from two hours (placebo) to over 20 hours. Good (low) NNTs were obtained with ibuprofen 200 mg plus paracetamol (acetaminophen) 500 mg (NNT compared with placebo 1.6; 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 1.8), ibuprofen fast acting 200 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.3); ibuprofen 200 mg plus caffeine 100 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 3.1), diclofenac potassium 50 mg (2.1; 1.9 to 2.5), and etoricoxib 120 mg (1.8; 1.7 to 2.0). For comparison, ibuprofen acid 400 mg had an NNT of 2.5 (2.4 to 2.6). Not all participants had good pain relief and, for many pairs of drug and dose, 50% or more did not achieve at least 50% maximum pain relief over four to six hours.Long duration of action (eight hours or greater) was found for etoricoxib 120 mg, diflunisal 500 mg, paracetamol 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg, naproxen 500/550 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 400 mg plus paracetamol 1000 mg.There was no evidence of analgesic effect for aceclofenac 150 mg, aspirin 500 mg, and oxycodone 5 mg (low quality evidence). No trial data were available in reviews of acemetacin, meloxicam, nabumetone, nefopam, sulindac, tenoxicam, and tiaprofenic acid. Inadequate amounts of data were available for nine drugs and doses, and data potentially susceptible to publication bias for 13 drugs and doses (very low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a wealth of reliable evidence on the analgesic efficacy of single dose oral analgesics. Fast acting formulations and fixed dose combinations of analgesics can produce good and often long-lasting analgesia at relatively low doses. There is also important information on drugs for which there are no data, inadequate data, or where results are unreliable due to susceptibility to publication bias. This should inform choices by professionals and consumers.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral microbleeds are a potential neuroimaging biomarker of cerebral small vessel diseases that are prone to intracranial bleeding. We aimed to determine whether presence of cerebral microbleeds can identify patients at high risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage when anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. METHODS: Our observational, multicentre, prospective inception cohort study recruited adults aged 18 years or older from 79 hospitals in the UK and one in the Netherlands with atrial fibrillation and recent acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, treated with a vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant, and followed up for 24 months using general practitioner and patient postal questionnaires, telephone interviews, hospital visits, and National Health Service digital data on hospital admissions or death. We excluded patients if they could not undergo MRI, had a definite contraindication to anticoagulation, or had previously received therapeutic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurring at any time before the final follow-up at 24 months. The log-rank test was used to compare rates of intracranial haemorrhage between those with and without cerebral microbleeds. We developed two prediction models using Cox regression: first, including all predictors associated with intracranial haemorrhage at the 20% level in univariable analysis; and second, including cerebral microbleed presence and HAS-BLED score. We then compared these with the HAS-BLED score alone. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02513316. FINDINGS: Between Aug 4, 2011, and July 31, 2015, we recruited 1490 participants of whom follow-up data were available for 1447 (97%), over a mean period of 850 days (SD 373; 3366 patient-years). The symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage rate in patients with cerebral microbleeds was 9·8 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 4·0-20·3) compared with 2·6 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 1·1-5·4) in those without cerebral microbleeds (adjusted hazard ratio 3·67, 95% CI 1·27-10·60). Compared with the HAS-BLED score alone (C-index 0·41, 95% CI 0·29-0·53), models including cerebral microbleeds and HAS-BLED (0·66, 0·53-0·80) and cerebral microbleeds, diabetes, anticoagulant type, and HAS-BLED (0·74, 0·60-0·88) predicted symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage significantly better (difference in C-index 0·25, 95% CI 0·07-0·43, p=0·0065; and 0·33, 0·14-0·51, p=0·00059, respectively). INTERPRETATION: In patients with atrial fibrillation anticoagulated after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, cerebral microbleed presence is independently associated with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage risk and could be used to inform anticoagulation decisions. Large-scale collaborative observational cohort analyses are needed to refine and validate intracranial haemorrhage risk scores incorporating cerebral microbleeds to identify patients at risk of net harm from oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: The Stroke Association and the British Heart Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival-ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589. FINDINGS: none in the ciclosporin group). INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

The objectives of this study were to determine whether or not the probiotic Lactobacillus GG can colonise the immature bowel of premature infants and if so, does colonisation result in a reduction of the size of the bowel reservoir of nosocomial pathogens such as enterobacteriaceae, enterococci, yeasts or staphylococci, and does colonisation with Lactobacillus GG have any effect on the clinical progress and outcome. Twenty preterm infants with a gestational age of 33 weeks or less who were resident on a neonatal unit were studied from the initiation of milk feeds until discharge. The infants were randomised to receive either milk feeds or milk feeds supplemented with Lactobacillus GG 10(8) colony forming units twice a day for two weeks. The clinical features of the two groups of infants were similar. Orally administered Lactobacillus GG was well tolerated and did colonise the bowel of premature infants. However, colonisation with Lactobacillus GG did not reduce the faecal reservoir of potential pathogens and there was no evidence that colonisation had any positive clinical benefit for this particular group of infants.