Effectiveness of Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition in Treating Protein-Energy Wasting in Hemodialysis: A Rapid Systematic Review.

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) is commonly requested before recommended therapies in malnourished patients on hemodialysis. This review provides updated critical synthesis of the evidence on the use of IDPN in patients on hemodialysis. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and other sources to identify evidence. Two reviewers sequentially selected studies, abstracted data, rated study quality, and synthesized evidence using predefined criteria. IDPN did not improve clinically relevant outcomes compared with dietary counseling or oral supplementation and had varied results compared with usual care in 12 studies. Data are limited on adverse events or cost-effectiveness of IDPN. Important limitations of the evidence, including limited measurement of clinically important outcomes, methodological concerns, and heterogeneity between studies, weaken our confidence in these findings. IDPN may be a reasonable treatment option for patients who fail to respond or cannot receive recommended treatments, but the broad usage of IDPN before recommended treatment options does not appear warranted.

Mortality Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups in the Veterans Health Administration: An Evidence Review and Map.

BACKGROUND: Continued racial/ethnic health disparities were recently described as "the most serious and shameful health care issue of our time." Although the 2014 US Affordable Care Act-mandated national insurance coverage expansion has led to significant improvements in health care coverage and access, its effects on life expectancy are not yet known. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest US integrated health care system, has a sustained commitment to health equity that addresses all 3 stages of health disparities research: detection, understanding determinants, and reduction or elimination. Despite this, racial disparities still exist in the VHA across a wide range of clinical areas and service types. OBJECTIVES: To inform the health equity research agenda, we synthesized evidence on racial/ethnic mortality disparities in the VHA. SEARCH METHODS: Our research librarian searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from October 2006 through February 2017 using terms for racial groups and disparities. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they compared mortality between any racial/ethnic minority and nonminority veteran groups or between different minority groups in the VHA (PROSPERO# CRD42015015974). We made study selection decisions on the basis of prespecified eligibility criteria. They were first made by 1 reviewer and checked by a second and disagreements were resolved by consensus (sequential review). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers sequentially abstracted data on prespecified population, outcome, setting, and study design characteristics. Two reviewers sequentially graded the strength of evidence using prespecified criteria on the basis of 5 key domains: study limitations (study design and internal validity), consistency, directness, precision of the evidence, and reporting biases. We synthesized the evidence qualitatively by grouping studies first by racial/ethnic minority group and then by clinical area. For areas with multiple studies in the same population and outcome, we pooled their reported hazard ratios (HRs) using random effects models (StatsDirect version 2.8.0; StatsDirect Ltd., Altrincham, England). We created an evidence map using a bubble plot format to represent the evidence base in 5 dimensions: odds ratio or HR of mortality for racial/ethnic minority group versus Whites, clinical area, strength of evidence, statistical significance, and racial group. MAIN RESULTS: From 2840 citations, we included 25 studies. Studies were large (n ≥ 10 000) and involved nationally representative cohorts, and the majority were of fair quality. Most studies compared mortality between Black and White veterans and found similar or lower mortality for Black veterans. However, we found modest mortality disparities (HR or OR = 1.07, 1.52) for Black veterans with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, colon cancer, diabetes, HIV, rectal cancer, or stroke; for American Indian and Alaska Native veterans undergoing noncardiac major surgery; and for Hispanic veterans with HIV or traumatic brain injury (most low strength). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Although the VHA's equal access health care system has reduced many racial/ethnic mortality disparities present in the private sector, our review identified mortality disparities that have persisted mainly for Black veterans in several clinical areas. However, because most mortality disparities were supported by single studies with imprecise findings, we could not draw strong conclusions about this evidence. More disparities research is needed for American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic veterans overall and for more of the largest life expectancy gaps. Public Health Implications. Because of the relatively high prevalence of diabetes in Black veterans, further research to better understand and reduce this mortality disparity may be prioritized as having the greatest potential impact. However, other mortality disparities affect thousands of veterans and cannot be ignored.

Health Disparities in Veterans: A Map of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Goals for improving the quality of care for all Veterans and eliminating health disparities are outlined in the Veterans Health Administration Blueprint for Excellence, but the degree to which disparities in utilization, health outcomes, and quality of care affect Veterans is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the research on health care disparities in the Veterans Health Administration by means of a map of the evidence. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search for research studies published from 2006 to February 2016 in MEDLINE and other data sources. We included studies of Veteran populations that examined disparities in 3 outcome categories: utilization, quality of health care, and patient health. MEASURES: We abstracted data on study design, setting, population, clinical area, outcomes, mediators, and presence of disparity for each outcome category. We grouped the data by population characteristics including race, disability status, mental illness, demographics (age, era of service, rural location, and distance from care), sex identity, socioeconomic status, and homelessness, and created maps illustrating the evidence. RESULTS: We reviewed 4249 citations and abstracted data from 351 studies which met inclusion criteria. Studies examining disparities by race/ethnicity comprised by far the vast majority of the literature, followed by studies examining disparities by sex, and mental health condition. Very few studies examined disparities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity or homelessness. Disparities findings vary widely by population and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence maps provide a "lay of the land" and identify important gaps in knowledge about health disparities experienced by different Veteran populations.

Rapid Evidence Review of Bariatric Surgery in Super Obesity (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2).

BACKGROUND: Despite accumulating evidence of the important health benefits of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese patients in general, bariatric surgery outcomes are less clear in higher-risk, high-priority populations of patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2. To help the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research & Development Service (HSR&D) develop a research agenda, we conducted a rapid evidence review to better understand bariatric surgery outcomes in adults with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2016. We included trials and observational studies. We used pre-specified criteria to select studies, abstract data, and rate internal validity and strength of the evidence (PROSPERO registration number CRD42015025348). All decisions were completed by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: Among 1892 citations, we included 23 studies in this rapid review. Compared with usual care, one large retrospective VA study provided limited evidence that bariatric surgery can lead to increased mortality in the first year, but decreased mortality long-term among super obese veterans. Studies that compared different bariatric surgical approaches suggested some differences in weight loss and complications. Laparoscopic gastric bypass generally resulted in greater short-term proportion of excess weight loss than did other procedures. Duodenal switch led to greater long-term weight loss than did gastric bypass, but with more complications. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature that separates the super obese is insufficient for determining the precise balance of benefits and harms of bariatric surgery in this high-risk subgroup. Future studies should evaluate a more complete set of key outcomes with longer follow-up in larger samples of more broadly representative adults.

Rapid evidence review of the comparative effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided antidepressant treatment versus usual care for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct an evidence review of the effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO through February 2017. We used prespecified criteria to select studies, abstract data, and rate internal validity and strength of the evidence (PROSPERO number CRD42016036358). RESULTS: We included two randomized trials (RCT), five controlled cohort studies, and six modeling studies of mostly women in their mid-40s with few comorbidities. CNSDose (ABCB1, ABCC1, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, UGT1A1) is the only pharmacogenomics test that significantly improved remission (one additional remitting patient in 12 weeks per three genotyped, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.5) and reduced intolerability in an RCT. ABCB1 genotyping leads to one additional remitting patient in 5 weeks per three genotyped (95% CI 3 to 20), but tolerability was not reported. In an RCT, GeneSight (CYP2D6, CYPC19, CYP1A2, SLC6A4, HTR2A) did not statistically significantly improve remission, and evidence is inconclusive about its tolerability. Evidence is generally low strength because RCTs were few and underpowered. Cost-effectiveness is unclear due to lack of directly observed cost-effectiveness outcomes. We found no studies that evaluated whether pharmacogenomics shortens time to optimal treatment, whether improvements were due to switches to genetically congruent medication, or whether effectiveness varies based on test and patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Certain pharmacogenomics tools show promise of improving short-term remission rates in women in their mid-40s with few comorbidities. But, important evidence limitations preclude recommending their widespread use and indicate a need for further research.