Primary lung tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant immunotherapy for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

Patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who undergo concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy often experience synergistic toxicity, and local regional control rates remain poor. We assessed the activity and safety outcomes of primary tumour stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) followed by conventional chemoradiotherapy to the lymph nodes and consolidation immunotherapy in patients with unresectable locally advanced NSCLC. In this multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled at eight regional cancer centres in North Carolina and South Carolina, USA. Patients were eligible if they had stage II-III, unresectable, locally advanced NSCLC (any histology), with peripheral or central primary tumours that were 7 cm or smaller, excluding central tumours within 2 cm of involved nodal disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients who had previously received systemic therapy or radiotherapy were excluded. Participants received SBRT to the primary tumour (50-54 Gy in three to five fractions) followed by standard radiotherapy (planned up to 60 Gy in 30 2 Gy fractions) to the involved lymph nodes with concurrent platinum doublet chemotherapy (either paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 intravenously plus carboplatin area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min every 7 days for a total of six 1-week cycles or etoposide 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1-5 and days 29-33 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 for two cycles of 4 weeks). An amendment to the protocol (Dec 11, 2017) permitted the administration of consolidation durvalumab at the discretion of the treating investigator. An additional protocol amendment on Jan 13, 2021, directed patients without disease progression after chemoradiotherapy to receive consolidation durvalumab (10 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 and day 15 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles or 1500 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 4-week cycle for up to 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1), assessed in all participants who received at least one fraction of SBRT and had radiological follow-up data up to 1 year. A 1-year progression-free survival rate of greater than 60% was required to reject the null hypothesis and show significant improvement in 1-year progression-free survival. One-sided exact binomial tests were used to compare the primary endpoint versus the historical control 1-year progression-free survival rate used to determine the sample size. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one fraction of SBRT. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141359, and is closed to accrual. Between May 11, 2017, and June 27, 2022, 61 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of fractionated SBRT, of whom 59 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 67 years (IQR 61-72), 28 (46%) of 61 were female, 33 (54%) were male, 51 (84%) were White, seven (11%) were Black, and three (5%) were of other or unknown race. Of the 61 patients enrolled, 47 received at least one dose of consolidation durvalumab. As of data cutoff (July 12, 2023), median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 14·9-47·1). 1-year progression-free survival was 62·7% (90% CI 51·2-73·2; one-sided p=0·39, compared with the historical control rate), with 37 of 59 evaluable participants progression free and alive 1 year after enrolment (n=14 progressed, n=8 died). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (nine [15%] of 61 patients), decreased white blood cell count (five [8%]), and anaemia (four [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 11 (18%) of 61 patients, which included lung infection (three [5%]), pneumonitis (two [3%]), decreased neutrophil count (two [3%]), febrile neutropenia (two [3%]), and dyspnoea, hypoxia, respiratory failure, sinus tachycardia, bronchial infection, and acute kidney injury (each in one [2%] patient). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (7%) of 61 patients (one each of respiratory failure, respiratory failure and dyspnoea, lung infection, and pneumonitis). Although this study did not meet the primary endpoint, activity and safety profiles of primary lung tumour SBRT followed by concurrent mediastinal chemoradiotherapy were favourable compared with other modern trials treating locally advanced NSCLC with chemoradiotherapy. These findings serve as the basis for the ongoing randomised phase 3 study NRG Oncology LU008 (NCT05624996). AstraZeneca and Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute.

Heinzerling JH ，Mileham KF ，Robinson MM ，Symanowski JT ，Induru RR ，Brouse GM ，Corso CD ，Prabhu RS ，Haggstrom DE ，Moeller BJ ，Bobo WE ，Fasola CE ，Thakkar VV ，Pal SE ，Gregory JM ，Norek SL ，Begic XJ ，Kesarwala AH ，Burri SH ，Simone CB 2nd ... -  《-》

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of LBP-EC01, a CRISPR-Cas3-enhanced bacteriophage cocktail, in uncomplicated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia coli (ELIMINATE): the randomised, open-label, first part of a two-part phase 2 trial.

The rate of antibiotic resistance continues to grow, outpacing small-molecule-drug development efforts. Novel therapies are needed to combat this growing threat, particularly for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic use and associated antibiotic resistance. LBP-EC01 is a novel, genetically enhanced, six-bacteriophage cocktail developed by Locus Biosciences (Morrisville, NC, USA) to address UTIs caused by Escherichia coli, regardless of antibiotic resistance status. In this first part of the two-part phase 2 ELIMINATE trial, we aimed to define a dosing regimen of LBP-EC01 for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs that could advance to the second, randomised, controlled, double-blinded portion of the study. This first part of ELIMINATE is a randomised, uncontrolled, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in six private clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were female by self-identification, aged between 18 years and 70 years, and had an uncomplicated UTI at the time of enrolment, as well as a history of at least one drug-resistant UTI caused by E coli within the 12 months before enrolment. Participants were initially randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio into three treatment groups, but this part of the trial was terminated on the recommendation of the safety review committee after a non-serious tolerability signal was observed based on systemic drug exposure. A protocol update was then implemented, comprised of three new treatment groups. Groups A to C were dosed with intraurethral 2 × 1012 plaque-forming units (PFU) of LBP-EC01 on days 1 and 2 by catheter, plus one of three intravenous doses daily on days 1-3 of LBP-EC01 (1 mL of 1 × 1010 PFU intravenous bolus in group A, 1 mL of 1 × 109 PFU intravenous bolus in group B, and a 2 h 1 × 1011 PFU intravenous infusion in 100 mL of sodium lactate solution in group C). In all groups, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; 160 mg and 800 mg) was given twice daily on days 1-3. The primary outcome was the level of LBP-EC01 in urine and blood across the treatment period and over 48 h after the last dose and was assessed in patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who received at least one dose of LBP-EC01 and had concentration-time data available throughout the days 1-3 dosing period (pharmacokinetic population). Safety, a secondary endpoint, was assessed in enrolled patients who received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). As exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints, we assessed E coli levels in urine and clinical symptoms of UTI in patients with at least 1·0 × 105 colony-forming units per mL E coli in urine at baseline who took at least one dose of study drug and completed their day 10 test-of-cure assessment (pharmacodynamic-evaluable population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05488340, and is ongoing. Between Aug 22, 2022, and Aug 28, 2023, 44 patients were screened for eligibility, and 39 were randomly assigned (ITT population). Initially, eight participants were assigned to the first three groups. After the protocol was updated, 31 participants were allocated into groups A (11 patients), B (ten patients), and C (ten patients). One patient in group C withdrew consent on day 2 for personal reasons, but as she had received the first dose of the study drug was included in the modified ITT population. Maximum urine drug concentrations were consistent across intraurethral dosing, with a maximum mean concentration of 6·3 × 108 PFU per mL (geometric mean 8·8 log10 PFU per mL and geometric SD [gSD] 0·3). Blood plasma level of bacteriophages was intravenous dose-dependent, with maximum mean concentrations of 4·0 × 103 (geometric mean 3·6 log10 PFU per mL [gSD 1·5]) in group A, 2·5 × 103 (3·4 log10 PFU per mL [1·7]) in group B, and 8·0 × 105 (5·9 log10 PFU per mL [1·4]) in group C. No serious adverse events were observed. 44 adverse events were reported across 18 (46%) of the 39 participants in the safety population, with more adverse events seen with higher intravenous doses. Three patients in groups 1 to 3 and one patient in group C, all of whom received 1 × 1011 LBP-EC01 intravenously, had non-serious tachycardia and afebrile chills after the second intravenous dose. A rapid reduction of E coli in urine was observed by 4 h after the first treatment and maintained at day 10 in all 16 evaluable patients; these individuals had complete resolution of UTI symptoms by day 10. A regimen consisting of 2 days of intraurethral LBP-EC01 and 3 days of concurrent intravenous LBP-EC01 (1 × 1010 PFU) and oral TMP-SMX twice a day was well tolerated, with consistent pharmacokinetic profiles in urine and blood. LBP-EC01 and TMP-SMX dosing resulted in a rapid and durable reduction of E coli, with corresponding elimination of clinical symptoms in evaluable patients. LBP-EC01 holds promise in providing an alternative therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, with further testing of the group A dosing regimen planned in the controlled, double-blind, second part of ELIMINATE. Federal funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Kim P ，Sanchez AM ，Penke TJR ，Tuson HH ，Kime JC ，McKee RW ，Slone WL ，Conley NR ，McMillan LJ ，Prybol CJ ，Garofolo PM ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus carboplatin-based doublet as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer aged ≥70 years or with an ECOG performance status of 2 (GFPC 08-2015 ENERGY): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

Combined treatment with anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies has shown superiority over chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but data for older patients (aged ≥70 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1 or those with an ECOG performance status of 2 are scarce. We aimed to test the superiority of the PD-1 antibody nivolumab and the CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab over platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with NSCLC aged 70 years or older or with an ECOG performance status of 2. This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 30 hospitals and cancer centres in France. Eligible patients had stage IV histologically proven NSCLC, with no known oncogenic alterations, and were either aged 70 years or older with ECOG performance status of 0-2 or younger than 70 years with an ECOG performance status of 2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally, using a computer-generated algorithm stratified by age (<70 vs ≥70 years), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (carboplatin [area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus pemetrexed [500 mg/m2 intravenous infusion every 3 weeks] or carboplatin [on day 1; area under the curve ≤700 mg] plus paclitaxel [90 mg/m2 as intravenous infusion on days 1, 5, and 15, every 4 weeks]). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. All efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was analysed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and who had at least one safety follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03351361. The trial was stopped early for futility on the basis of a pre-planned interim analysis after 33% of the expected events had occurred. Between Feb 12, 2018, and Dec 15, 2020, 217 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 216 patients were included in the final analysis, with 109 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 107 in the chemotherapy group; median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78). Median overall survival was 14·7 months (95% CI 8·0-19·7) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 9·9 months (7·7-12·3) in chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·62-1·16]). Among patients aged 70 years or older with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 (median age 76 years [IQR 73-79]), median overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the chemotherapy group: 22·6 months (95% CI 18·1-36·0) versus 11·8 months (8·9-20·5; HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·46-0·96]). Among patients with an ECOG performance status of 2 (median age 69 years [IQR 63-75]), median overall survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 1·4-4·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group versus 6·1 months (3·5-10·4) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·32 [95% CI 0·82-2·11]). No new safety signals were reported. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (28 [27%] of 103 patients) in the chemotherapy group and endocrine disorders (five [5%] of 105 patients), cardiac disorders (ten [10%] patients), and gastrointestinal disorders (11 [11%] patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The study showed no benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination in the overall study population. As a result of early stopping, the trial was underpowered for primary and secondary endpoints; however, the finding of better survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with platinum doublet in the subgroup of older patients with NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0-1 warrants further study. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Léna H ，Greillier L ，Cropet C ，Bylicki O ，Monnet I ，Audigier-Valette C ，Falchero L ，Vergnenègre A ，Demontrond P ，Geier M ，Guisier F ，Hominal S ，Locher C ，Corre R ，Chouaid C ，Ricordel C ，GFPC 08–2015 ENERGY investigators ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》