Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies). RESULTS: Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies. DISCUSSION: To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

The Use of Technology in the Clinical Care of Anxiety: An Evidence Map.

OBJECTIVE: Cost, distance, and stigma may present barriers to face-to-face treatment for anxiety disorders. Technology can help overcome these barriers. The evidence map presented here provides an overview of technology use in clinical care for anxiety. METHODS: Searches in three databases from their inception dates to June 2019 identified published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining technology use in anxiety disorder management. Reviewers screened 4,061 records, included 128 RCTs, and extracted data on study characteristics and technology type, function, and effectiveness. RESULTS: In 88% of the 128 RCTs, the authors reported reduced anxiety symptoms postintervention. Studies of computer technology (66%) and patient self-directed psychotherapy (31%) were most common. Many interventions were studied by only a few RCTs, and many studies had small sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all interventions reported improved anxiety symptoms, with computer applications having the largest evidence base. More information is needed to evaluate the role of technology in clinical care for anxiety.

A systematic review of St. John's wort for major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluated St. John's wort (SJW) for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The objectives of this review are to (1) evaluate the efficacy and safety of SJW in adults with MDD compared to placebo and active comparator and (2) evaluate whether the effects vary by severity of MDD. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Embase, AMED, MANTIS, Web of Science, and ICTRP and existing reviews to November 2014. Two independent reviewers screened the citations, abstracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of at least a 4-week administration of SJW on depression outcomes against placebo or active comparator in adults with MDD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and USPSTF criteria. Quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies examining 6993 patients met inclusion criteria; eight studies evaluated a hypericum extract that combined 0.3 % hypericin and 1-4 % hyperforin. The herb SJW was associated with more treatment responders than placebo (relative risk [RR] 1.53; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.19, 1.97; I(2) 79 %; 18 RCTs; N = 2922, moderate QoE; standardized mean differences [SMD] 0.49; CI 0.23, 0.74; 16 RCTs; I(2) 89 %, N = 2888, moderate QoE). Compared to antidepressants, SJW participants were less likely to experience adverse events (OR 0.67; CI 0.56, 0.81; 11 RCTs; moderate QoE) with no difference in treatment effectiveness (RR 1.01; CI 0.90, 1.14; 17 RCTs, I(2) 52 %, moderate QoE; SMD -0.03; CI -0.21, 0.15; 14 RCTs; I(2) 74 %; N = 2248, moderate QoE) in mild and moderate depression. CONCLUSIONS: SJW monotherapy for mild and moderate depression is superior to placebo in improving depression symptoms and not significantly different from antidepressant medication. However, evidence of heterogeneity and a lack of research on severe depression reduce the quality of the evidence. Adverse events reported in RCTs were comparable to placebo and fewer compared with antidepressants. However, assessments were limited due to poor reporting of adverse events and studies were not designed to assess rare events. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with caution. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016406 .

Mental Health Conditions Among Patients Seeking and Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Bariatric surgery is associated with sustained weight loss and improved physical health status for severely obese individuals. Mental health conditions may be common among patients seeking bariatric surgery; however, the prevalence of these conditions and whether they are associated with postoperative outcomes remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of mental health conditions among bariatric surgery candidates and recipients, to evaluate the association between preoperative mental health conditions and health outcomes following bariatric surgery, and to evaluate the association between surgery and the clinical course of mental health conditions. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE on OVID, and PsycINFO for studies published between January 1988 and November 2015. Study quality was assessed using an adapted tool for risk of bias; quality of evidence was rated based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. FINDINGS: We identified 68 publications meeting inclusion criteria: 59 reporting the prevalence of preoperative mental health conditions (65,363 patients) and 27 reporting associations between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative outcomes (50,182 patients). Among patients seeking and undergoing bariatric surgery, the most common mental health conditions, based on random-effects estimates of prevalence, were depression (19% [95% CI, 14%-25%]) and binge eating disorder (17% [95% CI, 13%-21%]). There was conflicting evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss. Neither depression nor binge eating disorder was consistently associated with differences in weight outcomes. Bariatric surgery was, however, consistently associated with postoperative decreases in the prevalence of depression (7 studies; 8%-74% decrease) and the severity of depressive symptoms (6 studies; 40%-70% decrease). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Mental health conditions are common among bariatric surgery patients-in particular, depression and binge eating disorder. There is inconsistent evidence regarding the association between preoperative mental health conditions and postoperative weight loss. Moderate-quality evidence supports an association between bariatric surgery and lower rates of depression postoperatively.

Summary of the comparative effectiveness review on off-label use of atypical antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: Conventional and atypical antipsychotic medications are approved by the FDA for treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Over many decades, the widespread use of conventional antipsychotics produced various side effects requiring additional medications, such as the atypical antipsychotics. Beginning in 2006, 9 atypical antipsychotic drugs have been approved by the FDA for indications that were previously off-label uses: aripiprazole (as augmentation for major depressive disorder [MDD] and for autism spectrum disorders), asenapine, clozapine, iloperidone, olanzapine (in combination with fluoxetine for MDD and bipolar depression), paliperidone, quetiapine (quetiapine and quetiapine XR [extended release] as monotherapy in bipolar depression and quetiapine XR as augmentation for MDD), risperidone (for autism spectrum disorders), and ziprasidone. In 2006, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of off-label uses of atypical antipsychotics. Since that time, numerous studies have been published evaluating these therapies in various new off-label uses; new or increased adverse effects have been observed with off-label uses; new atypical antipsychotics have been approved; and previously off-label uses have been approved for some atypical antipsychotics. Hence, AHRQ published an updated review in September 2011 that summarized the benefits and harms of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder/attention deficit disorder (ADHD), anxiety, behavioral disturbances of dementia and severe geriatric agitation, depression, eating disorders, insomnia, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance use and dependence disorders, and Tourette's syndrome. The new report also investigated topics for which data in the previous report were found to be insufficient to make conclusions, including subpopulations (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender) that would benefit most from atypical antipsychotics, appropriate dose, and time needed to see clinical improvement. The 2011 review included the following atypical antipsychotics: aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone; no clinical trials were found for off-label use of the 3 most recently FDA-approved atypical antipsychotics (asenapine, iloperidone, and paliperidone). OBJECTIVES: To (a) familiarize health care professionals with the methods and findings from AHRQ's 2011 Comparative Effectiveness Review (CER) of off-label use of atypical antipsychotics, (b) encourage consideration of the clinical and managed care applications of the review findings, and (c) identify limitations and gaps in the existing research with respect to the benefits and risks of off-label use of atypical antipsychotics. SUMMARY: Antipsychotic medications are FDA approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Conventional antipsychotics have been widely used for decades and spurred the development of the atypical antipsychotics. Atypical antipsychotics were produced and are now being used for patients who may have experienced various side effects while using conventional antipsychotics.In 2006, an AHRQ study reviewed off-label uses of atypical antipsychotics (excluding clozapine because of its association with potentially fatal bone marrow suppression and the requirement for frequent blood tests for safety monitoring). Findings indicated that the most common off-label uses of these drugs included depression, OCD, PTSD, personality disorders, Tourette's syndrome, autism, and agitation in dementia. The reviewers concluded in 2006 that overall there was not sufficiently high strength of evidence of efficacy for any off-label use of atypical antipsychotics. There was, however, strong evidence for an increased risk of adverse events with off-label use, including significant weight gain and sedation and increased mortality among the elderly.Since the 2006 review, significant developments occurred in the use of atypical antipsychotics, including FDA approval of the atypical antipsychotics asenapine, iloperidone, and paliperidone and FDA approval of previous off-label uses: (a) quetiapine and quetiapine XR as monotherapy in bipolar depression; (b) quetiapine XR as augmentation therapy for MDD; (c) aripiprazole as augmentation therapy for MDD; (d) olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for MDD; (e) olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for bipolar depression; and (f) risperidone and aripiprazole for autism spectrum disorders. Additional studies have been published for new off-label uses, and there have been reports of new or increased adverse effects for off-label uses.Further review of previously insufficient information was warranted on subpopulations where treatment modification such as dosing may increase efficacy. The 2006 review did not have sufficient information to make conclusions regarding subpopulations (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender) that would benefit most from atypical antipsychotics, appropriate dosing, and the duration of treatment needed to see clinical improvement. The updated AHRQ report in 2011 reviewed off-label uses of atypical antipsychotic medications in anxiety, ADHD, behavioral disturbances of dementia and severe geriatric agitation, MDD, eating disorders, insomnia, OCD, PTSD, personality disorders, substance abuse, and Tourette's syndrome; autism was included in the 2006 review but is now reviewed in a separate report of the comparative effectiveness of antipsychotics for on-label uses. The significant findings in the updated review include (a) small but statistically significant benefits for olanzapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone for elderly patients with dementia; (b) quetiapine appears superior to placebo for general anxiety disorder (GAD); (c) risperidone was associated with benefits in the treatment of OCD; and (d) adverse events are common. Atypical antipsychotics were not effective in the treatment of eating disorders or personality disorder. The evidence did not support the use of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of substance abuse, and data were inconclusive for the use of these medications for insomnia. The number needed to harm (NNH) was calculated for adverse events in elderly patients, including risk of death (NNH = 87), stroke (NNH = 53 for risperidone), extrapyramidal symptoms (NNH = 10 for olanzapine and NNH = 20 for risperidone), and urinary symptoms (NNH = 16 to 36). Adverse events in nonelderly adults included weight gain (particularly with olanzapine), fatigue, sedation, akathisia (with aripiprazole), and extrapyramidal symptoms.

Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Probiotics are live microorganisms intended to confer a health benefit when consumed. One condition for which probiotics have been advocated is the diarrhea that is a common adverse effect of antibiotic use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for probiotic use in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic databases were searched (DARE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, MANTIS, TOXLINE, ToxFILE, NTIS, and AGRICOLA) and references of included studies and reviews were screened from database inception to February 2012, without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers identified parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and/or Bacillus) for the prevention or treatment of AAD. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed trial quality. RESULTS: A total of 82 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The majority used Lactobacillus-based interventions alone or in combination with other genera; strains were poorly documented. The pooled relative risk in a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of 63 RCTs, which included 11 811 participants, indicated a statistically significant association of probiotic administration with reduction in AAD (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.68; P < .001; I(2), 54%; [risk difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.05], [number needed to treat, 13; 95% CI, 10.3 to 19.1]) in trials reporting on the number of patients with AAD. This result was relatively insensitive to numerous subgroup analyses. However, there exists significant heterogeneity in pooled results and the evidence is insufficient to determine whether this association varies systematically by population, antibiotic characteristic, or probiotic preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with a reduction in AAD. More research is needed to determine which probiotics are associated with the greatest efficacy and for which patients receiving which specific antibiotics.