Asthma has a global prevalence of 262 million people and is characterized by airway inflammation and variable airflow obstruction.¹ Reliever inhalers, including bronchodilator-only relievers (short-acting β agonists [SABA]), such as albuterol, or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with either SABA or formoterol, are indicated for patients with asthma to acutely relieve symptoms of dyspnea, wheezing, or cough.¹ Although the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)¹ and the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program² recommend ICS-formoterol as the preferred reliever over SABA alone, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved ICS-SABA as a reliever inhaler; the optimal asthma reliever remains unclear.³ Furthermore, guideline recommendations do not sufficiently differentiate between ICS-SABA and SABA-alone relievers, and the relative benefits of ICS-formoterol compared with ICS-SABA on clinical outcomes remain unclear.^1,2 This systematic review evaluated inhaled relievers for improving outcomes in asthma.

The United Nations has projected a 218% increase in older people in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) between 2019 and 2050, underscoring the need to explore changes that would occur over this time. Longitudinal studies are ideal for studying and proffering solutions to these changes. This review aims to understand the breadth and use of longitudinal studies on aging in the SSA regions, proffering recommendations in preparation for the projected aging population. This paper is the third of a four-part series paper of a previous systematic mapping review of aging studies in SSA. We updated the search (between 2021 and 2023) and screened the titles/abstracts and full-text articles by a pair of independent reviewers. Data were extracted using a standardized data-charting form, identifying longitudinal studies in SSA. We identified 193 studies leveraging 24 longitudinal study data sets conducted at 28 unique sites. The World Health Organization’s Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (WHO-SAGE) (n = 59, 30.5%) and Health and Aging in Africa: A Longitudinal Study of an INDEPTH Community in South Africa (HAALSI) (n = 51, 26.4%) were the most used longitudinal data sets. Four studies used more than one longitudinal study data set. Eighteen of the longitudinal study data sets were used only in 1–4 studies. Most (n = 150, 77.7%) of the studies used a cross-sectional analytical approach. Longitudinal studies on aging are sparingly being utilized in SSA. Most analyses conducted across the longitudinal data set were cross-sectional, which hindered the understanding of aging changes that occurred over time that could better inform aging policy and interventions. We call for funding bodies, such as WHO-SAGE, to develop funding competitions that focus on conducting longitudinal analyses, such as structural equation modeling, highlighting changes occurring among the aging population in SSA.

Prognostic models incorporate multiple prognostic factors to estimate the likelihood of future events for individual patients based on their prognostic factor values. Evaluating these models crucially involves conducting studies to assess their predictive performance, like discrimination. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these validation studies play an essential role in selecting models for clinical practice. In this paper, we outline 3 thresholds to determine the target for certainty rating in the discrimination of prognostic models, as observed across a body of validation studies. We propose 3 thresholds when rating the certainty of evidence about a prognostic model's discrimination. The first threshold amounts to rating certainty in the model's ability to classify better than random chance. The other 2 approaches involve setting thresholds informed by other mechanisms for classification: clinician intuition or an alternative prognostic model developed for the same disease area and outcome. The choice of threshold will vary based on the context. Instead of relying on arbitrary discrimination cut-offs, our approach positions the observed discrimination within an informed spectrum, potentially aiding decisions about a prognostic model's practical utility.

The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1-antihistamines for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with H1-antihistamines versus H1-antihistamines alone for acute and chronic urticaria. As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, FDA, and EMA databases from inception to December 18^th, 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and H1-antihistamines versus H1-antihistamines alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. Open Science Framework registration: https://osf.io/h2bfx/. Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3,324 children and adults. Compared to H1-antihistamines alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) with H1-antihistamines probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference: -5.04, 95%CI -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day Urticaria Activity Score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity, and quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty), however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. Among patients with urticaria, adding LTRAs to H1-antihistamines probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with LTRAs is small and uncertain.