Hormonal therapy and sex reassignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life and psychosocial outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognosis of individuals with gender identity disorder (GID) receiving hormonal therapy as a part of sex reassignment in terms of quality of life and other self-reported psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, bibliography of included studies and expert files. All study designs were included with no language restrictions. Reviewers working independently and in pairs selected studies using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted outcome and quality data. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool proportions and estimate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We estimated the proportion of between-study heterogeneity not attributable to chance using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: We identified 28 eligible studies. These studies enrolled 1833 participants with GID (1093 male-to-female, 801 female-to-male) who underwent sex reassignment that included hormonal therapies. All the studies were observational and most lacked controls. Pooling across studies shows that after sex reassignment, 80% of individuals with GID reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria (95% CI = 68-89%; 8 studies; I(2) = 82%); 78% reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms (95% CI = 56-94%; 7 studies; I(2) = 86%); 80% reported significant improvement in quality of life (95% CI = 72-88%; 16 studies; I(2) = 78%); and 72% reported significant improvement in sexual function (95% CI = 60-81%; 15 studies; I(2) = 78%). CONCLUSIONS: Very low quality evidence suggests that sex reassignment that includes hormonal interventions in individuals with GID likely improves gender dysphoria, psychological functioning and comorbidities, sexual function and overall quality of life.

Translating comparative effectiveness into practice: the case of diabetes medications.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been significant interest and investment in conducting comparative effectiveness research (CER) of medical treatments to improve the quality of care and reduce costs. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has been leading this effort and has invested a significant amount of resources to advance CER. However, little is known about translating the findings from CER into routine practice such that it provides value to the patients, clinicians, and the healthcare system. METHODS: We present the role of shared decision making for patient-centered CER translation and its application to diabetes medications. CER of oral diabetes medications suggests that all medications are similar in their effects on glycemic control, but there is variability in side-effects, which may affect medication adherence and treatment intensification. Shared decision making, facilitated by tools such as decision aids, may enhance the quality of diabetes care by activating patients, enhancing the patient-clinician communication, and improving uptake and adherence to the medication that is determined to be consistent with patients' goals, values, and preferences. We describe the iterative, multidisciplinary process for developing and testing a diabetes medication decision aid, and examine the implications for CER translation. RESULTS: In our pilot study we found the decision aid to be acceptable to patients and providers and effective for knowledge translation; however, it did not impact short-term outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our pilot trial found that decision aids enhanced the discussion about diabetes medications without any adverse effects on the outcomes. Further issues related to the use of decision aids to translate CER need to be addressed in larger trials to understand the effectiveness and efficiency of translating evidence into routine practice in unique contexts of patients, providers, and healthcare systems.

Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

CONTEXT: Theory and simulation suggest that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) systematically overestimate treatment effects for the outcome that precipitated early stopping. OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment effect from truncated RCTs with that from meta-analyses of RCTs addressing the same question but not stopped early (nontruncated RCTs) and to explore factors associated with overestimates of effect. DATA SOURCES: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, and full-text journal content databases to identify truncated RCTs up to January 2007; search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects to identify systematic reviews from which individual RCTs were extracted up to January 2008. STUDY SELECTION: Selected studies were RCTs reported as having stopped early for benefit and matching nontruncated RCTs from systematic reviews. Independent reviewers with medical content expertise, working blinded to trial results, judged the eligibility of the nontruncated RCTs based on their similarity to the truncated RCTs. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers with methodological expertise conducted data extraction independently. RESULTS: The analysis included 91 truncated RCTs asking 63 different questions and 424 matching nontruncated RCTs. The pooled ratio of relative risks in truncated RCTs vs matching nontruncated RCTs was 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.77). This difference was independent of the presence of a statistical stopping rule and the methodological quality of the studies as assessed by allocation concealment and blinding. Large differences in treatment effect size between truncated and nontruncated RCTs (ratio of relative risks <0.75) occurred with truncated RCTs having fewer than 500 events. In 39 of the 63 questions (62%), the pooled effects of the nontruncated RCTs failed to demonstrate significant benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Truncated RCTs were associated with greater effect sizes than RCTs not stopped early. This difference was independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules and was greatest in smaller studies.

A treatment decision aid may increase patient trust in the diabetes specialist. The Statin Choice randomized trial.

AIMS: Decision aids in practice may affect patient trust in the clinician, a requirement for optimal diabetes care. We sought to determine the impact of a decision aid to help patients with diabetes decide about statins (Statin Choice) on patients' trust in the clinician. METHODS: We randomized 16 diabetologists and 98 patients with type 2 diabetes referred to a subspecialty diabetes clinic to use the Statin Choice decision aid or a patient pamphlet about dyslipidaemia, and then to receive these materials from either the clinician during the visit or a researcher prior to the visit. Providers and patients were blinded to the study hypothesis. Immediately after the clinical encounter, patients completed a survey including questions on trust (range 0 to total trust = 100), knowledge, and decisional conflict. Researchers reviewed videotaped encounters and assessed patient participation (using the OPTION scale) and visit length. RESULTS: Overall mean trust score was 91 (median 97.2, IQR 86, 100). After adjustment for patient characteristics, results suggested greater total trust (trust = 100) with the decision aid [odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% CI 0.94, 3.35]. Total trust was associated with knowledge (for each additional knowledge point, OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.6), patient participation (for each additional point in the OPTION scale, OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.1, 1.2), and decisional conflict (for every 5-point decrease in conflict, OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2, 1.9). Total trust was not associated with visit length, which the decision aid did not significantly affect. There was no significant effect interaction across the trial factors. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that decision aids do not have a large negative impact on trust in the physician and may increase trust through improvements in the decision-making process.

Clinical review: Antiandrogens for the treatment of hirsutism: a systematic review and metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: The relative efficacy of antiandrogens for the treatment of hirsutism remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of antiandrogens on hirsutism. DATA SOURCES: We used librarian-designed search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (up to May 2006), review of reference lists, and contact with hirsutism experts to identify eligible RCTs. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were RCTs of at least 6 months of antiandrogen use in women with hirsutism. Reviewers, with acceptable chance-adjusted agreement (kappa = 0.72), independently assessed eligibility. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers used structured forms to assess and collect methodological quality (allocation concealment, blinding, and loss to follow-up) and study data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 348 candidate studies, 12 were eligible (18 comparisons). Their methodological quality was low. Random-effects metaanalyses showed that compared with placebo, antiandrogens reduce Ferriman-Gallwey scores by 3.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3-5.4; inconsistency (I(2)) = 0%]. When compared with metformin, spironolactone reduced hirsutism scores by 1.3 (CI, 0.03-2.6) and flutamide by 5.0 (CI, 3.0-7.0; I(2) = 0%). For these interventions, two to five women need to receive treatment for one to notice improvement. Spironolactone or finasteride in combination with contraceptives (1.7; CI, 0.1-3.3; I(2) = 0%) or flutamide with metformin (4.6; CI, 1.3-7.9; I(2) = 40%) appear superior to monotherapy with contraceptives and metformin, respectively. Only three RCTs reported patient self-assessments of hirsutism. CONCLUSIONS: Weak evidence suggests antiandrogens are mildly effective agents for the treatment of hirsutism.

Clinical review: Insulin sensitizers for the treatment of hirsutism: a systematic review and metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: Insulin sensitizers, including metformin and thiazolidinediones (TZDs), improve hyperinsulinemia and reproductive dysfunctions in some women with hyperandrogenism. The extent to which these agents improve hirsutism remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials of metformin or TZDs for the treatment of hirsutism. DATA SOURCES: We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (up to May 2006). Review of reference lists and contact with hirsutism experts further identified candidate trials. STUDY SELECTION: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate, with acceptable chance-adjusted agreement (kappa = 0.72), determined trial eligibility. Eligible trials randomly assigned women with hirsutism to at least 6 months of insulin sensitizers or control and measured hirsutism outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate determined the methodological quality of trials and collected data on patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 348 candidate studies, 16 trials (22 comparisons) were eligible. The methodological quality of these trials was low. Random-effects metaanalyses showed a small decrease in Ferriman-Gallwey scores in women treated with insulin sensitizers compared with placebo [pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) of -1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.8 to -0.2; inconsistency (I(2)) = 75%]. There was no significant difference between insulin sensitizers and oral contraceptives (WMD of -0.5; CI, -5.0, 3.9; I(2) = 79%). Metformin was inferior to both spironolactone (WMD of 1.3; CI, 0.03, 2.6) and flutamide (WMD of 5.0; CI, 3.0, 7.0; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Imprecise and inconsistent evidence of low to very low quality suggests that insulin sensitizers provide limited or no important benefit for women with hirsutism.

The design of a decision aid about diabetes medications for use during the consultation with patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process used to develop a medication choice decision aid (DA) for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We developed the DA through active collaboration with patients, clinicians, and designers, direct observations of clinical encounters, literature review, and collaborative development of design criteria. Insights from these processes informed the iterative creation of prototypes that were reviewed and field tested in actual consultations. RESULTS: The goal of the DA was to facilitate a conversation between the clinician and the patient about diabetes medication options. Four iterations of the DA were developed and field-tested before arriving at issue cards that organized the data for five medications around glucose control, hypoglycemia, weight changes, daily routine, self-monitoring and side effects. These cards successfully generated conversations during consultations. An ongoing clinical trial will determine if this DA affects patient adherence and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A collaboratively developed DA designed to create a conversation about diabetes medications may lead to more patient-centered treatment choices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If effective, this DA could replace disease-centered treatment algorithms for patient-centered conversations that enhance the management of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality of information transfer about the benefits and risks of statin drug use may result in patients not making informed decisions that they can act on in a timely fashion. METHODS: The effect of a decision aid about statin drugs on treatment decision making in 98 patients with diabetes was determined in a cluster randomized trial of decision aid vs control pamphlet, with concealed allocation, blinding of participants to study goals, and adherence to the intention-to-treat principle. Twenty-one endocrinologists conducted specialty outpatient metabolic consultations. Patients in the intervention group received Statin Choice, a tailored decision aid that presents the estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction with use of statin drugs, and the disadvantages of using statin drugs. Patients in the control group received the institution's pamphlet about cholesterol management. We measured acceptability, knowledge about options and cardiovascular risk, and decisional conflict immediately after the visit, and adherence to pill taking was measured 3 months later. RESULTS: Patients favored using the decision aid (odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-6.9); patients who received the decision aid (n = 52) knew more (difference, 2.4 of 9 points; 95% CI, 1.5-3.3), had better estimated cardiovascular risk (OR, 22.4; 95% CI, 5.9-85.6) and potential absolute risk reduction with statin drugs (OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 2.2-19.7), and had less decisional conflict (difference, -10.6; 95% CI, -15.4 to -5.9 on a 100-point scale) than did patients in the control group (n = 46). Of 33 patients in the intervention group taking statin drugs at 3 months, 2 reported missing 1 dose or more in the last week compared with 6 of 29 patients in the control group taking statin drugs (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid enhanced decision making about statin drugs and may have favorably affected drug adherence.

Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials.

CONTEXT: Concerns about the safety and efficacy of diabetes interventions persist, in part because randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have not measured their effect on patient-important outcomes, ie, death and quality of life (morbidity, pain, function). OBJECTIVE: To systematically determine the extent to which ongoing and future RCTs in diabetes will ascertain patient-important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: On November 10, 2007, we searched primary RCT registries ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register (http://isrctn.org), and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au). STUDY SELECTION: We identified phase 2 through 4 RCTs enrolling patients with diabetes. Of 2019 RCTs, 1054 proved eligible. We randomly sampled 50% of the eligible RCTs (527 of 1054) and selected 436 registered since registration became mandatory (2004). DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers working independently collected study characteristics and determined the outcomes measured and their type (physiological outcomes, surrogate outcomes thought to reflect an increased risk for patient-important outcomes, and patient-important outcomes). RESULTS: Of the 436 registered RCTs included in this analysis, 24 (6%) had not started enrollment, 109 (25%) were actively enrolling, and 303 (69%) had completed enrollment. Primary outcomes were patient-important outcomes in only 78 of 436 RCTs (18%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14%-22%), physiological and laboratory outcomes in 69 of 436 (16%; 95% CI, 13%-20%), and surrogate outcomes in 268 of 436 (61%; 95% CI, 57%-66%). Patient-important outcomes were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 201 of 436 (46%; 95% CI, 41%-51%). In multivariate analysis, large trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19 for every additional 100 patients) and trials of longer duration (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06 for every additional 30 days) were more likely while parallel design RCTs (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.44) and type 2 diabetes trials (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61) were less likely to assess patient-important outcomes as a primary outcome. CONCLUSION: In this sample of registered ongoing RCTs in diabetes, only 18% included patient-important outcomes as primary outcomes.

Adverse effects of the common treatments for polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is common among women of childbearing age and the available pharmacological therapies have different side-effect profiles. OBJECTIVE: We summarized the evidence about the side effects of oral contraceptive pills, metformin, and anti-androgens in women with PCOS. DATA SOURCE: Sources included Ovid Medline, OVID EMBASE, OVID Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from inception through April 2011. STUDY SELECTION: We included comparative observational studies enrolling women with PCOS who received the agents of choice for at least 6 months and reported adverse effects. DATA EXTRACTION: Using a standardized, piloted, and Web-based data extraction form and working in duplicate, we abstracted data from each study and performed meta-analysis when possible. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 22 eligible studies of which 20 were randomized. No study reported severe side effects (eg, lactic acidosis, thromboembolic episodes, liver toxicity, cancer incidence, or pregnancy loss). Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant change in weight in oral contraceptive pills or flutamide users. Indirect evidence from populations without PCOS demonstrated no increased risk of lactic acidosis with metformin, only case reports of liver toxicity with flutamide (no comparative evidence), and increased relative risk difference of venous thromboembolism with oral contraceptive pills but very low absolute risk. Evidence on mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cancer was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs commonly used to treat PCOS appear to be associated with very low risk of severe adverse effects although data are extrapolated from other populations.

A systematic review of patient-reported measures of burden of treatment in three chronic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Burden of treatment refers to the workload of health care and its impact on patient functioning and well-being. There are a number of patient-reported measures that assess burden of treatment in single diseases or in specific treatment contexts. A review of such measures could help identify content for a general measure of treatment burden that could be used with patients dealing with multiple chronic conditions. We reviewed the content and psychometric properties of patient-reported measures that assess aspects of treatment burden in three chronic diseases, ie, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, and EBSCO CINAHL through November 2011. Abstracts were independently reviewed by two people, with disagreements adjudicated by a third person. Retrieved articles were reviewed to confirm relevance, with patient-reported measures scrutinized to determine consistency with the definition of burden of treatment. Descriptive information and psychometric properties were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 5686 abstracts were identified from the database searches. After abstract review, 359 full-text articles were retrieved, of which 76 met our inclusion criteria. An additional 22 articles were identified from the references of included articles. From the 98 studies, 57 patient-reported measures of treatment burden (full measures or components within measures) were identified. Most were multi-item scales (89%) and assessed treatment burden in diabetes (82%). Only 15 measures were developed using direct patient input and had demonstrable evidence of reliability, scale structure, and multiple forms of validity; six of these demonstrated evidence of sensitivity to change. We identified 12 content domains common across measures and disease types. CONCLUSION: Available measures of treatment burden in single diseases can inform derivation of a patient-centered measure of the construct in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Patients should take part in developing the measure to ensure salience and relevance.

Lifestyle modification programs in polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent disorder that affects women of childbearing age and may be related to obesity and insulin resistance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence of the impact of lifestyle modification (LSM) interventions on outcomes of women with PCOS. DATA SOURCES: Sources included Ovid Medline, OVID Embase, OVID Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (up to January 2011). STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled woman of any age with PCOS who received LSM and compared them against women who received no intervention, minimal intervention, or metformin. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors performed the data extraction independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 9 trials enrolling 583 women with a high loss to follow-up rate, lack of blinding, and short follow-up. Compared with minimal intervention, LSM significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (weighted mean difference, -2.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, -4.5 to -0.1, I² = 72%, P = .04) and fasting blood insulin (weighted mean difference, -2.1 µU/mL, 95% confidence interval, -3.3 to -1.0, I² = 0%, P < .001). Changes in body mass index were associated with changes in fasting blood glucose (P < .001). Metformin was not significantly better than LSM in improving blood glucose or insulin levels. We found no significant effect of LSM on pregnancy rate, and the effect on hirsutism was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that LSM reduces fasting blood glucose and insulin levels in women with PCOS. Metformin has similar effects. Translation of these short-term effects to patient-important outcomes, beyond diabetes prevention, remains uncertain.

Lessons learned from the conduct of a multisite cluster randomized practical trial of decision aids in rural and suburban primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: The decision aids for diabetes (DAD) trial explored the feasibility of testing the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) about coronary prevention and diabetes medications in community-based primary care practices, including rural clinics that care for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: As originally designed, we invited clinicians in eight practices to participate in the trial, reviewed the patient panel of clinicians who accepted our invitation for potentially eligible patients, and contacted these patients by phone, enrolling those who accepted our invitation. As enrollment failed to meet targets, we recruited four new practices. After discussing the study with the clinicians and receiving their support, we reviewed all clinic panels for potentially eligible patients. Clinicians were approached to confirm participation and patient eligibility, and patients were approached before their visit to provide written informed consent. This in-clinic approach required study coordinators to travel and stay longer at the clinics as well as to screen more patient records for eligibility. The in-clinic approach was associated with better recruitment rates, lower patient retention and outcome completion rates, and a better intervention effect. RESULTS: We drew four lessons: 1) difficulties identifying potentially eligible patients threaten the viability of practical trials of DAs; 2) to improve the recruitment yield, recruit clinicians and patients for the study at the clinic, just before their visit; 3) approaches that improve recruitment may be associated with reduced retention and survey response; and 4) procedures that involve working closely with the practice may improve recruitment and may also affect the quality of the implementation of the interventions. CONCLUSION: Success in practice-based trials in usual primary care including rural clinics may require the smallest possible research footprint on the practice while implementing a streamlined protocol favoring in-clinic, in-person interactions with clinicians and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029288.

Adherence to preventive recommendations: experience of a cohort presenting for executive health care.

Adherence to recommended preventive services and immunizations in adults is suboptimal and often associated with socioeconomic status, race, and access to care. The aim of this study is to evaluate adherence in a cohort without these barriers to ascertain realistically optimal adherence rates and to examine remaining barriers among relatively advantaged individuals. Specifically, it employed a sample of 6889 patients presenting for executive health care from 2005 to 2009. Adherence varied across colorectal cancer screening (79%), mammography (89%), cervical cancer screening (91%), tetanus immunization (82%), and pneumococcal vaccination (62%). Multivariate logistic regressions revealed that age, education, alcohol use concerns, and being married were positively associated with adherence to certain services. Individuals without the usual barriers to care have variable, less-than-ideal rates of adherence to preventive services, which correlate with some health behaviors and demographics. Understanding the predictors of adherence may inform quality improvement processes aimed at optimizing disease prevention.

Clinical review. Comparative effectiveness of drug treatments to prevent fragility fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Osteoporosis and osteopenia are associated with increased fracture incidence. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological agents in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. DATA SOURCES: We searched multiple databases through 12/9/2011. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials enrolling individuals at risk of developing fragility fractures and evaluating the efficacy of bisphosphonates, teriparatide, selective estrogen receptor modulators, denosumab, or calcium and vitamin D. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate determined study eligibility and collected descriptive, methodological quality, and outcome data. DATA SYNTHESIS: This network meta-analysis included 116 trials (139,647 patients; median age, 64 yr; 86% females and 88% Caucasians; median follow-up, 24 months). Trials were at low to moderate risk of bias. Teriparatide had the highest risk reduction of fractures (odds ratios, 0.42, 0.30, and 0.50 for hip, vertebral, and nonvertebral fractures, respectively) and the highest probability of being ranked first for efficacy (probabilities of 42, 49, and 79% for hip, vertebral, and nonvertebral fractures, respectively). However, differences to denosumab, zoledronate, risedronate, ibandronate, and alendronate were not statistically significant. Raloxifene and bazedoxifene were likely less effective, although these data were limited. Calcium and vitamin D were ineffective given separately but reduced the risk of hip fractures if given in combination (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.68­0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Teriparatide, bisphosphonates, and denosumab are most effective in reducing the risk of fragility fractures. Differences in efficacy across drugs are small; therefore, patients and clinicians need to consider their associated harms and costs.

Clinical review. Risk factors for low bone mass-related fractures in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Testing men at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures has been recommended. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the magnitude of association and quality of supporting evidence linking multiple risk factors with low bone mass-related fractures in men. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Cochrane CENTRAL through February 2010. We identified further studies by reviewing reference lists from selected studies and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies had to enroll men and quantitatively evaluate the association of risk factors with low bone density-related fractures. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate determined study eligibility and extracted study description, quality, and outcome data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-five studies provided data sufficient for meta-analysis. The quality of these observational studies was moderate with fair levels of multivariable adjustment and adequate exposure and outcome ascertainment. Statistically significant associations were established for age, low body mass index, current smoking, excessive alcohol use, chronic corticosteroid use, history of prior fractures, history of falls, history of hypogonadism, history of stroke, and history of diabetes. Statistical heterogeneity of the meta-analytic estimates of all associations was significant except for chronic corticosteroid use. None of these associations were of large magnitude (i.e. adjusted odds ratios were generally <2). No evidence supporting a particular effective testing or screening strategy was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors for fractures in men were identified, but their usefulness for stratifying and selecting men for bone density testing remains uncertain.

Treatment of hyperprolactinemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperprolactinemia is a common endocrine disorder that can be associated with significant morbidity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of outcomes of hyperprolactinemic patients, including microadenomas and macroadenomas, to provide evidence-based recommendations for practitioners. Through this review, we aimed to compare efficacy and adverse effects of medications, surgery and radiotherapy in the treatment of hyperprolactinemia. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, reviewed bibliographies of included articles, and contacted experts in the field. Eligible studies provided longitudinal follow-up of patients with hyperprolactinemia and evaluated outcomes of interest. We collected descriptive, quality and outcome data (tumor growth, visual field defects, infertility, sexual dysfunction, amenorrhea/oligomenorrhea and prolactin levels). RESULTS: After review, 8 randomized and 178 nonrandomized studies (over 3,000 patients) met inclusion criteria. Compared to no treatment, dopamine agonists significantly reduced prolactin level (weighted mean difference, -45; 95% confidence interval, -77 to -11) and the likelihood of persistent hyperprolactinemia (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 0.99). Cabergoline was more effective than bromocriptine in reducing persistent hyperprolactinemia, amenorrhea/oligomenorrhea, and galactorrhea. A large body of noncomparative literature showed dopamine agonists improved other patient-important outcomes. Low-to-moderate quality evidence supports improved outcomes with surgery and radiotherapy compared to no treatment in patients who were resistant to or intolerant of dopamine agonists. CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence to support the use of dopamine agonists in reducing prolactin levels and persistent hyperprolactinemia, with cabergoline proving more efficacious than bromocriptine. Radiotherapy and surgery are useful in patients with resistance or intolerance to dopamine agonists.

Vitamin D and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Several studies found association between vitamin D levels and hypertension, coronary artery calcification, and heart disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effect of vitamin D on cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched electronic databases from inception through August 2010 for randomized trials. Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics, quality, and the outcomes of interest. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the relative risks (RR) and the weighted mean differences across trials. RESULTS: We found 51 eligible trials with moderate quality. Vitamin D was associated with nonsignificant effects on the patient-important outcomes of death [RR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93, 1.00; P = 0.08], myocardial infarction (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93, 1.13; P = 0.64), and stroke (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88, 1.25; P = 0.59). These analyses were associated with minimal heterogeneity. There were no significant changes in the surrogate outcomes of lipid fractions, glucose, or diastolic or systolic blood pressure. The latter analyses were associated with significant heterogeneity, and the pooled estimates were trivial in absolute terms. CONCLUSIONS: Trial data available to date are unable to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in mortality and cardiovascular risk associated with vitamin D. The quality of the available evidence is low to moderate at best.

Clinical review: The effect of vitamin D on falls: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Vitamin D affects bone and muscle health and likely reduces the risk of falls in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the existing evidence on vitamin D use and the risk of falls. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic databases from inception through August 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials in which the intervention was vitamin D and the incidence of falls was reported. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics, quality, and outcomes data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Odds ratio and associated 95% confidence interval were estimated from each study and pooled using the random effects model. RESULTS: We found 26 eligible trials of moderate quality that enrolled 45,782 participants, the majority of which were elderly and female. Vitamin D use was associated with statistically significant reduction in the risk of falls (odds ratio for suffering at least one fall, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96). This effect was more prominent in patients who were vitamin D deficient at baseline and in studies in which calcium was coadministered with vitamin D. The quality of evidence was low to moderate because of heterogeneity and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D combined with calcium reduces the risk of falls. The reduction in studies without calcium coadministration did not reach statistical significance. The majority of the evidence is derived from trials enrolling elderly women.

Clinical review 1: Adverse effects of testosterone therapy in adult men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The risks of testosterone therapy in men remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses of testosterone trials to evaluate the adverse effects of testosterone treatment in men. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2003 through August 2008. Review of reference lists and contact with experts further identified candidate studies. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were comparative, randomized, and nonrandomized and reported the effects of testosterone on outcomes of interest (death, cardiovascular events and risk factors, prostate outcomes, and erythrocytosis). Reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, determined study eligibility. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate determined the methodological quality of studies and collected descriptive, quality, and outcome data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality of the 51 included studies varied from low to medium, and follow-up duration ranged from 3 months to 3 yr. Testosterone treatment was associated with a significant increase in hemoglobin [weighted mean difference (WMD), 0.80 g/dl; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45 to 1.14] and hematocrit (WMD, 3.18%; 95% CI, 1.35 to 5.01), and a decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (WMD, -0.49 mg/dl; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.13). There was no significant effect on mortality, prostate, or cardiovascular outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The adverse effects of testosterone therapy include an increase in hemoglobin and hematocrit and a small decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. These findings are of unknown clinical significance. Current evidence about the safety of testosterone treatment in men in terms of patient-important outcomes is of low quality and is hampered by the brief study follow-up.