Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Major Update 2: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved for the treatment of adults hospitalized with COVID-19. PURPOSE: To update a living review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic U.S. Food and Drug Administration, company, and journal websites from 1 January 2020 through 19 October 2021. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted, and a second reviewer verified data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Since the last update (search date 9 August 2021), 1 new RCT and 1 new subtrial comparing a 10-day course of remdesivir with control (placebo or standard care) were identified. This review summarizes and updates the evidence on the cumulative 5 RCTs and 2 subtrials for this comparison. Our updated results confirm a 10-day course of remdesivir, compared with control, probably results in little to no mortality reduction (5 RCTs). Updated results also confirm that remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the proportion of patients recovered by day 29 (4 RCTs) and may reduce time to clinical improvement (2 RCTs) and hospital length of stay (4 RCTs). New RCTs, by increasing the strength of evidence, lead to an updated conclusion that remdesivir probably results in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at specific follow-up times (4 RCTs). New RCTs also alter the conclusions for harms-remdesivir, compared with control, may lead to a small reduction in serious adverse events but may lead to a small increase in any adverse event. LIMITATION: The RCTs differed in definitions of COVID-19 severity and outcomes reported. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, the findings confirm that remdesivir probably results in little to no difference in mortality and increases the proportion of patients recovered. Remdesivir may reduce time to clinical improvement and may lead to small reductions in serious adverse events but may result in a small increase in any adverse event. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Major Update: Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19 : A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is being studied and used for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To update a previous review of remdesivir for adults with COVID-19, including new meta-analyses of patients with COVID-19 of any severity compared with control. DATA SOURCES: Several sources from 1 January 2020 through 7 December 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir for COVID-19. New evidence is incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: 1 reviewer abstracted data; a second reviewer verified the data. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. DATA SYNTHESIS: The update includes 5 RCTs, incorporating data from a new large RCT and the final results of a previous RCT. Compared with control, a 10-day course of remdesivir probably results in little to no reduction in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.06]; 4 RCTs) but may result in a small reduction in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.71 [CI, 0.56 to 0.90]; 3 RCTs). Remdesivir probably results in a moderate increase in the percentage of patients who recovered and a moderate decrease in serious adverse events and may result in a large reduction in time to recovery. Effect on hospital length of stay or percentage remaining hospitalized is mixed. Compared with a 10-day course for those not requiring ventilation at baseline, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, the need for ventilation, and serious adverse events while increasing the percentage of patients who recovered or clinically improved. LIMITATION: Summarizing findings was challenging because of varying disease severity definitions and outcomes. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably results in little to no mortality difference but probably improves the percentage recovered and reduces serious harms and may result in a small reduction in the proportion receiving ventilation. For patients not receiving ventilation, a 5-day course may provide greater benefits and fewer harms with lower drug costs than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Remdesivir for Adults With COVID-19 : A Living Systematic Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points.

BACKGROUND: Few treatments exist for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Several databases, tables of contents of journals, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration and company websites were searched from 1 January through 31 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized trials of remdesivir treatments for adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. New evidence will be incorporated using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction and risk-of-bias assessment verified by a second reviewer; GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods used for certainty-of-evidence assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four randomized trials were included. In adults with severe COVID-19, remdesivir compared with placebo probably improves recovery by a large amount (absolute risk difference [ARD] range, 7% to 10%) and may result in a small reduction in mortality (ARD range, -4% to 1%) and a shorter time to recovery or clinical improvement. Remdesivir may have little to no effect on hospital length of stay. Remdesivir probably reduces serious adverse events by a moderate amount (ARD range, -6% to -8%). Compared with a 10-day remdesivir course, a 5-day course may reduce mortality, increase recovery or clinical improvement by small to moderate amounts, reduce time to recovery, and reduce serious adverse events among hospitalized patients not requiring mechanical ventilation. Recovery due to remdesivir may not vary by age, sex, symptom duration, or disease severity. LIMITATIONS: Low-certainty evidence with few published trials, including 1 preliminary report and 2 open-label trials. Trials excluded pregnant women and adults with severe kidney or liver disease. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with COVID-19, remdesivir probably improves recovery and reduces serious adverse events and may reduce mortality and time to clinical improvement. For adults not receiving mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a 5-day course of remdesivir may provide similar benefits to and fewer harms than a 10-day course. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service, and Evidence Synthesis Program.

Effectiveness and Harms of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Acute Respiratory Failure: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has increased. PURPOSE: To assess HFNO versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for ARF in hospitalized adults. DATA SOURCES: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2020; systematic review reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: 29 randomized controlled trials evaluated HFNO versus NIV (k = 11) or COT (k = 21). DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction by a single investigator was verified by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results are reported separately for HFNO versus NIV, for HFNO versus COT, and by initial or postextubation management. Compared with NIV, HFNO may reduce all-cause mortality, intubation, and hospital-acquired pneumonia and improve patient comfort in initial ARF management (low-certainty evidence) but not in postextubation management. Compared with COT, HFNO may reduce reintubation and improve patient comfort in postextubation ARF management (low-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Trials varied in populations enrolled, ARF causes, and treatment protocols. Trial design, sample size, duration of treatment and follow-up, and results reporting were often insufficient to adequately assess many outcomes. Protocols, clinician and health system training, cost, and resource use were poorly characterized. CONCLUSION: Compared with NIV, HFNO as initial ARF management may improve several clinical outcomes. Compared with COT, HFNO as postextubation management may reduce reintubations and improve patient comfort; HFNO resulted in fewer harms than NIV or COT. Broad applicability, including required clinician and health system experience and resource use, is not well known. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42019146691).

Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Effectiveness Review.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify new information evaluating clinically localized prostate cancer therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bibliographic databases (2013-January 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov and systematic reviews were searched for controlled studies of treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer with duration ≥5 years for mortality and metastases, and ≥1 year for harms. RESULTS: We identified 67 eligible references. Among patients with clinically, rather than prostate specific antigen, detected localized prostate cancer, watchful waiting may increase mortality and metastases but decreases urinary and erectile dysfunction vs radical prostatectomy. Comparative mortality effect may vary by tumor risk and age but not by race, health status, comorbidities or prostate specific antigen. Active monitoring probably results in little to no mortality difference in prostate specific antigen detected localized prostate cancer vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation regardless of tumor risk. Metastases were slightly higher with active monitoring. Harms were greater with radical prostatectomy than active monitoring and mixed between external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs active monitoring. 3-Dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation plus low dose rate brachytherapy provided small mortality reductions vs 3-dimensional conformal radiation and androgen deprivation but little to no difference on metastases. External beam radiation plus androgen deprivation vs external beam radiation alone may result in small mortality and metastasis reductions in higher risk disease but may increase sexual harms. Few new data exist on other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality vs watchful waiting in clinically detected localized prostate cancer but causes more harms. Effectiveness may be limited to younger men and those with intermediate risk disease. Active monitoring results in little to no mortality difference vs radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation plus androgen deprivation. Few new data exist on other treatments.

Efficacy and Safety of Testosterone Treatment in Men: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

Background: Testosterone treatment rates in adult men have increased in the United States over the past 2 decades. Purpose: To assess the benefits and harms of testosterone treatment for men without underlying organic causes of hypogonadism. Data Sources: English-language searches of multiple electronic databases (January 1980 to May 2019) and reference lists from systematic reviews. Study Selection: 38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6 months' duration that evaluated transdermal or intramuscular testosterone therapies versus placebo or no treatment and reported prespecified patient-centered outcomes, as well as 20 long-term observational studies, U.S. Food and Drug Administration review data, and product labels that reported harms information. Data Extraction: Data extraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second, 2 investigators assessed risk of bias, and evidence certainty was determined by consensus. Data Synthesis: Studies enrolled mostly older men who varied in age, symptoms, and testosterone eligibility criteria. Testosterone therapy improved sexual functioning and quality of life in men with low testosterone levels, although effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Testosterone therapy had little to no effect on physical functioning, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition. Harms evidence reported in trials was judged to be insufficient or of low certainty for most harm outcomes. No trials were powered to assess cardiovascular events or prostate cancer, and trials often excluded men at increased risk for these conditions. Observational studies were limited by confounding by indication and contraindication. Limitation: Few trials exceeded a 1-year duration, minimum important outcome differences were often not established or reported, RCTs were not powered to assess important harms, few data were available in men aged 18 to 50 years, definitions of low testosterone varied, and study entry criteria varied. Conclusion: In older men with low testosterone levels without well-established medical conditions known to cause hypogonadism, testosterone therapy may provide small improvements in sexual functioning and quality of life but little to no benefit for other common symptoms of aging. Long-term efficacy and safety are unknown. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42018096585).

Benefits and Harms of Prescription Drugs and Supplements for Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Effects of drug treatment of clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on the effects of prescription drugs and supplements for CATD treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases (inception to November 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (to November 2019), and systematic review bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials of prescription drug and supplement treatment in older adults with CATD that report cognition, function, global measures, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), or harms. Minimum treatment was 24 weeks (≥2 weeks for selected BPSD). DATA EXTRACTION: Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; another verified extraction accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-five studies reporting non-BPSD outcomes (most ≤26 weeks) and 12 reporting BPSD (most ≤12 weeks) were analyzed. Across CATD severity, mostly low-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, cholinesterase inhibitors produced small average improvements in cognition (median standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.30 [range, 0.24 to 0.52]), no difference to small improvement in function (median SMD, 0.19 [range, -0.10 to 0.22]), no difference in the likelihood of at least moderate improvement in global clinical impression (median absolute risk difference, 4% [range, 2% to 4%]), and increased withdrawals due to adverse events. In adults with moderate to severe CATD receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, low- to insufficient-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, add-on memantine inconsistently improved cognition and improved global clinical impression but not function. Evidence was mostly insufficient about prescription drugs for BPSD and about supplements for all outcomes. LIMITATION: Most drugs had few trials without high ROB, especially for supplements, active drug comparisons, BPSD, and longer trials. CONCLUSION: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine slightly reduced short-term cognitive decline, and cholinesterase inhibitors slightly reduced reported functional decline, but differences versus placebo were of uncertain clinical importance. Evidence was mostly insufficient on drug treatment of BPSD and on supplements for all outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).

The Effect of Medical Scribes in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Integrating medical scribes with clinicians has been suggested to improve access, quality of care, enhance patient/clinician satisfaction, and increase productivity revenue. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effects of medical scribes in emergency departments. METHODS: Electronic databases from 2010 through December 2019. Two individuals independently reviewed study eligibility, rated risk of bias, and determined overall certainty of evidence. Data abstracted included study and population characteristics, outcomes (efficiency, patient or clinician satisfaction, financial productivity, documentation quality, cost, and training time), and the effect of compensation structure, qualifications, duties, and setting on outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies (18 observational) were included; 12 from two institutions. All utilized in-person rather than virtual scribes. Fifteen were rated as serious or critical risk of bias; five were rated moderate. Findings indicate that scribes may increase patients seen per day and decrease length of stay; however, effects were small and may vary by setting and outcome measured (low certainty). Scribes may increase financial productivity; however, costs associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining scribe programs were not adequately reported. Results were mixed for door-to-room or door-to-provider time, patients left without being seen, and patient/clinician satisfaction. No studies examined the effects of scribes based on compensation structure, qualifications or duties. CONCLUSIONS: Although information quality, quantity, and applicability are limited, in-person medical scribes may improve emergency department efficiency and financial productivity. There was no information on virtual scribes. There was little information on patient or clinician satisfaction, scribe documentation quality, or whether results vary by in-house vs. contracted hiring and training.

Deprescribing for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications have been linked to increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, cognitive impairment, and death. The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1990 through February 2019 for controlled clinical trials comparing any deprescribing intervention to usual care or another intervention. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, and falls. The secondary outcome was use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Interventions were categorized as comprehensive medication review, educational initiatives, and computerized decision support. Data abstracted by one investigator were verified by another. We used the Cochrane criteria to rate risk of bias for each study and the GRADE system to determine certainty of evidence (COE) for primary outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-eight low and medium risk of bias clinical trials were included. Comprehensive medication review may have reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.95, I2 = 0, k = 12, low COE) but probably had little to no effect on falls, health-related quality of life, or hospitalizations (low to moderate COE). Nine of thirteen trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention group. Educational interventions probably had little to no effect on all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, or health-related quality of life (low to moderate COE). The effect on falls was uncertain (very low COE). All 11 education trials that included PIMs reported fewer in the intervention than in the control groups. Two of 4 computerized decision support trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention arms; none included any primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older, medication deprescribing interventions may provide small reductions in mortality and use of potentially inappropriate medications. REGISTRY INFORMATION: PROSPERO - CRD42019132420.

Prevalence and Severity of Psychiatric Disorders and Suicidal Behavior in Service Members and Veterans With and Without Traumatic Brain Injury: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Assess prevalence and severity of posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal behavior, and depressive, substance use, and anxiety disorders in US service members or Veterans with and without a deployment-related mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) (mTBI). DESIGN: Systematic review using multiple databases (January 2000 to October 2017). We included national or geographically diverse samples. MAIN MEASURE: Prevalence and severity of psychiatric conditions based on diagnostic codes, clinician assessments, and self-report measures with results stratified by sample type. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies on the basis of national samples and 22 studies on the basis of geographically diverse samples. Traumatic brain injury severity was not always ascertained or reported. In national studies, posttraumatic stress disorder, depressive disorder, substance use disorder, and anxiety disorder prevalence were higher in those with TBI than in those without. One national sample reported prevalence of suicide attempts. Across psychiatric conditions, strength of evidence ranged from insufficient to moderate. In geographically diverse samples, the pattern of findings was similar. National studies provided insufficient evidence on psychiatric condition severity; geographically diverse studies found greater severity of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms with mixed results for symptoms of depressive or substance use disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Service members and Veterans with TBI history have higher prevalence and possibly severity of selected psychiatric conditions.

Long-Term Drug Therapy and Drug Discontinuations and Holidays for Osteoporosis Fracture Prevention: A Systematic Review.

Background: Optimal long-term osteoporosis drug treatment (ODT) is uncertain. Purpose: To summarize the effects of long-term ODT and ODT discontinuation and holidays. Data Sources: Electronic bibliographic databases (January 1995 to October 2018) and systematic review bibliographies. Study Selection: 48 studies that enrolled men or postmenopausal women aged 50 years or older who were being investigated or treated for fracture prevention, compared long-term ODT (>3 years) versus control or ODT continuation versus discontinuation, reported incident fractures (for trials) or harms (for trials and observational studies), and had low or medium risk of bias (ROB). Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently rated ROB and strength of evidence (SOE). One extracted data; another verified accuracy. Data Synthesis: Thirty-five trials (9 unique studies) and 13 observational studies (11 unique studies) had low or medium ROB. In women with osteoporosis, 4 years of alendronate reduced clinical fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.82]) and radiographic vertebral fractures (both moderate SOE), whereas 4 years of raloxifene reduced vertebral but not nonvertebral fractures. In women with osteopenia or osteoporosis, 6 years of zoledronic acid reduced clinical fractures (HR, 0.73 [CI, 0.60 to 0.90]), including nonvertebral fractures (high SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (moderate SOE). Long-term bisphosphonates increased risk for 2 rare harms: atypical femoral fractures (low SOE) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (mostly low SOE). In women with unspecified osteoporosis status, 5 to 7 years of hormone therapy reduced clinical fractures (high SOE), including hip fractures (moderate SOE), but increased serious harms. After 3 to 5 years of treatment, bisphosphonate continuation versus discontinuation reduced radiographic vertebral fractures (zoledronic acid; low SOE) and clinical vertebral fractures (alendronate; moderate SOE) but not nonvertebral fractures (low SOE). Limitation: No trials studied men, clinical fracture data were sparse, methods for estimating harms were heterogeneous, and no trials compared sequential treatments or different durations of drug holidays. Conclusion: Long-term alendronate and zoledronic acid therapies reduce fracture risk in women with osteoporosis. Long-term bisphosphonate treatment may increase risk for rare adverse events, and continuing treatment beyond 3 to 5 years may reduce risk for vertebral fractures. Long-term hormone therapy reduces hip fracture risks but has serious harms. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018087006).

Efficacy of newer medications for lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review.

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of newer drugs used to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The drugs were either Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or not FDA approved for BPH but have been evaluated for treatment of BPH since 2008. We searched bibliographic databases through September 2017. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting one month or longer published in English. Outcomes of interest were LUTS assessed by validated measures. Efficacy was interpreted using established thresholds indicating clinical significance that identified the minimal detectable difference. Twenty-three unique, generally short-term, RCTs evaluating over 9000 participants were identified. Alpha-blocker silodosin and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor tadalafil were more effective than placebo in improving LUTS (moderate strength evidence) but these drugs had more adverse effects, including abnormal ejaculation (silodosin). Anticholinergics were only effective versus placebo when combined with an alpha-blocker. Evidence was generally low strength or insufficient for other drugs. Evidence was insufficient to assess long-term efficacy, prevention of symptom progression, need for surgical intervention, or long-term adverse effects. Longer trials are needed to assess the effect of these therapies on response rates using established minimal detectable difference thresholds, disease progression, and harms.

Provider Types and Outcomes in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Case Finding and Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosis and care models rely on sleep specialist physicians (SSPs) and can be expensive and inefficient. Purpose: To assess OSA case-finding accuracy and comparative effectiveness of care by non-sleep specialists (NSSs) and SSPs. Data Sources: MEDLINE and CINAHL from January 2000 through July 2017. Study Selection: English-language trials or observational studies comparing case finding or care by SSPs versus providers not specifically trained as SSPs (NSSs) for adults with suspected or diagnosed OSA. Data Extraction: One investigator extracted data and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence, with confirmation by a second investigator. Primary outcomes were patient-centered (mortality, access to care, quality of life, patient satisfaction, adherence, symptom scores, and adverse events). Intermediate outcomes included resource use, costs, time to initiation of treatment, and case finding. Data Synthesis: Four observational studies (n = 580; mean age, 52 years; 77% male) reported good agreement between NSSs and SSPs on appropriate diagnostic testing and classification of OSA severity (low-strength evidence). Five randomized trials and 3 observational studies (n = 1515; mean age, 52 years; 68% male) found that care provided by NSSs and SSPs resulted in similar quality of life, adherence, and symptom scores (low-strength evidence). Evidence was insufficient for access to care and adverse events. Limitations: Many outcomes were reported infrequently or not at all. Many NSSs had extensive training or experience in sleep medicine, which limits generalizability of findings to providers with less experience. Conclusion: Care by NSSs and SSPs resulted in similar outcomes in adults with known or suspected OSA. Studies are needed to determine care model implementation and reproducibility of results in nonacademic settings and among less experienced NSSs. Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016036810 [full Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program report]).

Focused Evidence Review: Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

BACKGROUND: Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000-1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and-when available-Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure's minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison. RESULTS: Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored. CONCLUSIONS: In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610.

Evidence Review-Social Determinants of Health for Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to providing high-quality care and addressing health disparities for vulnerable Veterans. To meet these goals, VA policymakers need guidance on how to address social determinants in operations planning and day-to-day clinical care for Veterans. METHOD: MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from inception to January 2017. Additional articles were suggested by peer reviewers and/or found through search of work associated with US and VA cohorts. Eligible articles compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and/or Veterans engaged with those not engaged in VA healthcare. Our evidence maps summarized study characteristics, social determinant(s) addressed, and whether health behaviors, health services utilization, and/or health outcomes were examined. Qualitative syntheses and quality assessment were performed for articles on rurality, trauma exposure, and sexual orientation. RESULTS: We screened 7242 citations and found 131 eligible articles-99 compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and 40 included engaged vs non-engaged Veterans. Most articles were cross-sectional and addressed socioeconomic factors (e.g., education and income). Fewer articles addressed rurality (N = 20), trauma exposure (N = 17), or sexual orientation (N = 2); none examined gender identity. We found no differences in rural residence between Veterans and non-Veterans, nor between engaged and non-engaged Veterans (moderate strength evidence). There was insufficient evidence for role of rurality in health behaviors, health services utilization, or health outcomes. Trauma exposures, including from events preceding military service, were more prevalent for Veterans vs non-Veterans and for engaged vs non-engaged Veterans (low-strength evidence); exposures were associated with smoking (low-strength evidence). DISCUSSION: Little published literature exists on some emerging social determinants. We found no differences in rural residence between our groups of interest, but trauma exposure was higher in Veterans (vs non-Veterans) and engaged (vs non-engaged). We recommend consistent measures for social determinants, clear conceptual frameworks, and analytic strategies that account for the complex relationships between social determinants and health.

Enhanced Recovery Protocols for Adults Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced surgical recovery protocols are designed to reduce hospital length of stay and health care costs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review and summarize evidence from randomized and controlled clinical trials comparing enhanced recovery protocols versus usual care in adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with emphasis on recent trials, protocol components, and subgroups for surgical approach and colorectal condition. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE from 2011 to July 2017; reference lists of existing systematic reviews and included studies were reviewed to identify all eligible trials published before 2011. STUDY SELECTION: English language trials comparing a protocol of preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative components with usual care in adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery were selected. INTERVENTION: The enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery was investigated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay, perioperative morbidity, mortality, readmission within 30 days, and surgical site infection were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials of open or laparoscopic surgery for cancer or noncancer conditions were included. Enhanced recovery protocols consisted of 4 to 18 components. Few studies fully described the various components. Length of stay (mean reduction, 2.6 days; 95% CI, -3.2 to -2.0) and risk of overall perioperative morbidity (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.80) were lower in enhanced recovery protocol groups than in usual care groups (moderate-quality evidence). All-cause mortality (rare), readmissions, and surgical site infection rates were similar between protocol groups (low-quality evidence). In predefined subgroup analyses, findings did not vary by surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic) or colorectal condition. LIMITATIONS: Protocols varied across studies and little information was provided regarding compliance with, or implementation of, specific protocol components. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced recovery protocols for adults undergoing colorectal surgery improve patient outcomes with no increase in adverse events. Evidence was insufficient regarding which components, or component combinations, are key to improving patient outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017067991.

An Evidence Map of the Women Veterans' Health Research Literature (2008-2015).

BACKGROUND: Women comprise a growing proportion of Veterans seeking care at Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities. VA initiatives have accelerated changes in services for female Veterans, yet the corresponding literature has not been systematically reviewed since 2008. In 2015, VA Women's Health Services and the VA Women's Health Research Network requested an updated literature review to facilitate policy and research planning. METHODS: The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program performed a systematic search of research related to female Veterans' health published from 2008 through 2015. We extracted study characteristics including healthcare topic, design, sample size and proportion female, research setting, and funding source. We created an evidence map by organizing and presenting results within and across healthcare topics, and describing patterns, strengths, and gaps. RESULTS: We identified 2276 abstracts and assessed each for relevance. We excluded 1092 abstracts and reviewed 1184 full-text articles; 750 were excluded. Of 440 included articles, 208 (47%) were related to mental health, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (71 articles), military sexual trauma (37 articles), and substance abuse (20 articles). The number of articles addressing VA priority topic areas increased over time, including reproductive health, healthcare organization and delivery, access and utilization, and post-deployment health. Three or fewer articles addressed each of the common chronic diseases: diabetes, hypertension, depression, or anxiety. Nearly 400 articles (90%) used an observational design. Eight articles (2%) described randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence map summarizes patterns, progress, and growth in the female Veterans' health and healthcare literature. Observational studies in mental health make up the majority of research. A focus on primary care delivery over clinical topics in primary care and a lack of sex-specific results for studies that include men and women have contributed to research gaps in addressing common chronic diseases. Interventional research using randomized trials is needed.

Silodosin for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: A variety of alpha-blockers are used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Silodosin is a novel, more selective alpha-blocker, which is specific to the lower urinary tract and may have fewer side effects than other alpha-blockers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of silodosin for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 13 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel, randomized controlled trials. We also included cross-over designs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 unique studies with 4295 randomized participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. The mean age, prostate volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score were 66.5 years, 38.2 mL, and 19.1, respectively. Silodosin versus placeboBased on four studies with a total of 1968 randomized participants, silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men (mean difference (MD) -2.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.23 to -2.08; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely does not result in a clinically important reduction in quality of life (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.13; moderate-quality evidence). It may not increase rates of treatment withdrawal for any reason (relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.66; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of silodosin on cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.45; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 26.07, 95% CI 12.36 to 54.97; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 180 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 82 more to 388 more). Silodosin versus tamsulosinBased on 13 studies with a total of 2129 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.04, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.69; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 6.05, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.31; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 141 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 71 more to 261 more). Silodosin versus naftopidilBased on five studies with a total of 763 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no differences in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.85, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.87; low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.27; low-quality evidence), treatment withdrawal for any reason (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.93; low-quality evidence), and cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.56; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 5.93, 95% CI 2.16 to 16.29; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 74 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 17 more to 231 more). Silodosin versus alfuzosinBased on two studies with a total of 155 randomized participants, silodosin may or may not result in a clinically important increase in urologic symptom scores (MD 3.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.54; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely results in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.74; moderate-quality evidence). We found no event of treatment withdrawal for any reason. Silodosin may not reduce cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) but likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 37.21, 95% CI 5.32 to 260.07; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 217 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 26 more to 1000 more). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men compared to placebo. Quality of life and treatment withdrawals for any reason appears similar. Its efficacy appears similar to that of other alpha blockers (tamsulosin, naftopidil and alfuzosin) but the rate of sexual side effects is likely higher. Our certainty in the estimates of effect was lowered due to study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.