Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

Cash transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a one-time cash transfer of $C1000 in people who are unable to physically distance due to insufficient income. DESIGN: Open-label, multi-centre, randomised superiority trial. SETTING: Seven primary care sites in Ontario, Canada; six urban sites associated with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and one in Manitoulin Island. PARTICIPANTS: 392 individuals who reported trouble affording basic necessities due to disruptions related to COVID-19. INTERVENTION: After random allocation, participants either received the cash transfer of $C1000 (n=196) or physical distancing guidelines alone (n=196). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the maximum number of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 over 14 days. Secondary outcomes were meeting clinical criteria for COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 presence, number of close contacts, general health and ability to afford basic necessities. RESULTS: The primary outcome of number of symptoms reported by participants did not differ between groups after 2 weeks (cash transfer, mean 1.6 vs 1.9, ratio of means 0.83; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.24). There were no statistically significant effects on secondary outcomes of the meeting COVID-19 clinical criteria (7.9% vs 12.8%; risk difference -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), SARS-CoV-2 presence (0.5% vs 0.6%; risk difference 0.00 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02), mean number of close contacts (3.5 vs 3.7; rate ratio 1.10; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.46), general health very good or excellent (60% vs 63%; risk difference -0.03 95% CI -0.14 to 0.08) and ability to make ends meet (52% vs 51%; risk difference 0.01 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: A single cash transfer did not reduce the COVID-19 symptoms or improve the ability to afford necessities. Further studies are needed to determine whether some groups may benefit from financial supports and to determine if a higher level of support is beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04359264.

Global Fractional Flow Reserve Value Predicts 5-Year Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Atherosclerosis But Without Ischemia.

Background Global fractional flow reserve (FFR) (ie, the sum of the FFR values in the 3 major coronary arteries) is a physiologic correlate of global atherosclerotic burden. The objective of the present study was to investigate the value of global FFR in predicting long-term clinical outcome of patients with stable coronary artery disease but no ischemia-inducing stenosis. Methods and Results We studied major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs: all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and any revascularization) after 5 years in 1122 patients without significant stenosis (all FFR >0.80; n=275) or with at least 1 significant stenosis successfully treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (ie, post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR >0.80; n=847). The patients were stratified into low, mid, or high tertiles of global FFR (≤2.80, 2.80-2.88, and ≥2.88). Patients in the lowest tertile of global FFR showed the highest 5-year MACE rate compared with those in the mid or high tertile of global FFR (27.5% versus 22.0% and 20.9%, respectively; log-rank P=0.040). The higher 5-year MACE rate was mainly driven by a higher rate of revascularization in the low global FFR group (16.4% versus 11.3% and 11.8%, respectively; log-rank P=0.038). In a multivariable model, an increase in global FFR of 0.1 unit was associated with a significant reduction in the rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.988; 95% CI, 0.977-0.998; P=0.023), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.982; 95% CI, 0.966-0.998; P=0.032), and revascularization (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.972-0.999; P=0.040). Conclusions Even in the absence of ischemia-producing stenoses, patients with a low global FFR, physiologic correlate of global atherosclerotic burden, present a higher risk of MACE at 5-year follow-up.

Comparative Methodological Assessment of the Randomized GLOBAL LEADERS Trial Using Total Ischemic and Bleeding Events.

BACKGROUND: Time-to-first-event analysis considers only the first event irrespective of its severity. There are several methods to assess trial outcomes beyond time-to-first-event analysis, such as analyzing total events and ranking outcomes. In the GLOBAL LEADERS study, time-to-first-event analysis did not show superiority of ticagrelor monotherapy following one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention to conventional 12-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy in the reduction of the primary composite end point of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction. This study sought to explore various analytical approaches in assessing total ischemic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention in the GLOBAL LEADERS study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Total ischemic and bleeding events were defined as all-cause mortality, any stroke, any myocardial infarction, any revascularization, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 2 or 3 bleeding. We used various analytical approaches to analyze the benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy over conventional DAPT. For ischemic and bleeding events at 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy demonstrated a 6% risk reduction, compared with conventional 12-month DAPT in time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-1.01]; log-rank P=0.10). In win ratio analysis, win ratio was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.97-1.13; P=0.20). Negative binomial regression and Andersen-Gill analyses which include repeated events showed statistically significant advantage for ticagrelor monotherapy (rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P=0.020] and hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P=0.028], respectively), although in weighted composite end point analysis, the hazard ratio was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-1.04; log-rank P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Statistical analyses considering repeated events or event severity showed that ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced ischemic and bleeding events by 5% to 8%, compared with conventional 1-year DAPT. Applying multiple statistical methods could emphasize the multiple facets of a trial and result in accurate and more appropriate analyses. Considering the recurrence of ischemic and bleeding events, ticagrelor monotherapy appeared to be beneficial after percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Compared with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medical specialties, RCTs in cardiac surgery face specific issues. Individual and collective equipoise, rapid evolution of the surgical techniques, as well as difficulties in obtaining funding, and limited education in clinical epidemiology in the surgical community are among the most important challenges in the design phase of the trial. Use of complex interventions and learning curve effect, differences in individual operators' expertise, difficulties in blinding, and slow recruitment make the successful completion of cardiac surgery RCTs particularly challenging. In fact, over the course of the last 20 years, the number of cardiac surgery RCTs has declined significantly. In this review, a team of surgeons, trialists, and epidemiologists discusses the most important challenges faced by RCTs in cardiac surgery and provides a list of suggestions for the successful design and completion of cardiac surgery RCTs.

Caesarean section in uninsured women in the USA: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the odds of caesarean section (CS) for uninsured women in the USA and understand the underlying mechanisms as well as consequences of lower use. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL from the first year of records to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation of ORs of CS of uninsured as compared with insured women. OUTCOMES: The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of deliveries by CS of uninsured women as compared with privately or publicly insured women. The prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of deliveries by CS of uninsured women as compared with insured women. RESULTS: 12 articles describing 16 separate studies involving more than 8.8 million women were included in this study. We found: 0.70 times lower odds of CS in uninsured as compared with privately insured women (95% CI 0.63 to 0.78), with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.01); and 0.92 times lower odds for CS in uninsured as compared with publicly insured women (95% CI 0.80 to 1.07), with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.02). We found 0.70 times lower odds in uninsured as compared with privately and publicly insured women (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: CSs are less likely to be performed in uninsured women as compared with insured women. While the higher rates for CS among privately insured women can be explained with financial incentives associated with private insurance, the lower odds among uninsured women draw attention at barriers to access for delivery care. In many regions, the rates for uninsured women are above, close or below the benchmarks for appropriate CS rates and could imply both, underuse and overuse.

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC).

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.

Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve outcome compared with medical therapy (MT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, but PCI was guided by angiography alone. FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) compared PCI guided by fractional flow reserve with best MT in patients with stable coronary artery disease to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A total of 888 patients with stable single-vessel or multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced fractional flow reserve were randomly assigned to PCI plus MT (n=447) or MT alone (n=441). Major adverse cardiac events included death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization. Costs were calculated on the basis of resource use and Medicare reimbursement rates. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years were assessed with utilities determined by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health survey at baseline and over follow-up. RESULTS: Major adverse cardiac events at 3 years were significantly lower in the PCI group compared with the MT group (10.1% versus 22.0%; P<0.001), primarily as a result of a lower rate of urgent revascularization (4.3% versus 17.2%; P<0.001). Death and myocardial infarction were numerically lower in the PCI group (8.3% versus 10.4%; P=0.28). Angina was significantly less severe in the PCI group at all follow-up points to 3 years. Mean initial costs were higher in the PCI group ($9944 versus $4440; P<0.001) but by 3 years were similar between the 2 groups ($16 792 versus $16 737; P=0.94). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared with MT was $17 300 per quality-adjusted life-year at 2 years and $1600 per quality-adjusted life-year at 3 years. The above findings were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: PCI of lesions with reduced fractional flow reserve improves long-term outcome and is economically attractive compared with MT alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01132495.

Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Financial incentives associated with private insurance may encourage healthcare providers to perform more caesarean sections. We therefore sought to determine the association of private insurance and odds of caesarean section. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library from the first year of records through August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported data to allow the calculation of OR of caesarean section of privately insured as compared with publicly insured women. OUTCOMES: The prespecified primary outcome was the adjusted OR of births delivered by caesarean section of women covered with private insurance as compared with women covered with public insurance. The prespecified secondary outcome was the crude OR of births delivered by caesarean section of women covered with private insurance as compared with women covered with public insurance. RESULTS: Eighteen articles describing 21 separate studies in 12.9 million women were included in this study. In a meta-analysis of 13 studies, the adjusted odds of delivery by caesarean section was 1.13 higher among privately insured women as compared with women with public insurance coverage (95% CI 1.07 to 1.18) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.006). The meta-analysis of crude estimates from 12 studies revealed a somewhat more pronounced association (pooled OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.44) with no relevant heterogeneity between studies (τ2=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Caesarean sections are more likely to be performed in privately insured women as compared with women using public health insurance coverage. Although this effect is small on average and variable in its magnitude, it is present in all analyses we performed.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of providing essential medicines at no charge: the Carefully seLected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-related non-adherence to medicines is common in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries such as Canada. Medicine non-adherence is associated with poor health outcomes and increased mortality. This randomised trial will test the impact of a carefully selected list of essential medicines at no charge (compared with usual medicine access) in primary care patients reporting cost-related non-adherence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label, parallel two-arm, superiority, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in three primary care sites (one urban, two rural) in Ontario, Canada, that was codesigned by a community guidance panel. Adult patients (≥18 years) who report cost-related non-adherence to medicines are eligible to participate in the study. Participants will be randomised to receive free and convenient access to a carefully selected list of 125 essential medicines (based on the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines) or usual means of medicine access. Care for patients in both groups will otherwise be unchanged. The primary outcome of this trial is adherence to appropriately prescribed medicines. Secondary outcomes include medicine adherence, appropriate prescribing, blood pressure, haemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, patient-oriented outcomes and healthcare costs. All participants will be followed for at least 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained in all three participating sites. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and discussed with members of the public and decision makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02744963.

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is commonly criticized for having a low reliability. We aimed to investigate whether training of raters, with objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. METHODS: In this pilot study, four raters inexperienced in risk of bias assessment were randomly allocated to minimal or intensive standardized training for risk of bias assessment of randomized trials of physical therapy treatments for patients with knee osteoarthritis pain. Two raters were experienced risk of bias assessors who served as reference. The primary outcome of our study was between-group reliability, defined as the agreement of the risk of bias assessments of inexperienced raters with the reference assessments of experienced raters. Consensus-based assessments were used for this purpose. The secondary outcome was within-group reliability, defined as the agreement of assessments within pairs of inexperienced raters. We calculated the chance-corrected weighted Kappa to quantify agreement within and between groups of raters for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 56 trials were included in our analysis. The Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference across items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0.10 to 0.81 for the minimal training group and from 0.41 to 0.90 for the standardized training group. The Kappa values for the agreement within pairs of inexperienced raters across the items of the risk of bias tool ranged from 0 to 0.38 for the minimal training group and from 0.93 to 1 for the standardized training group. Between-group differences in Kappa for the agreement of inexperienced raters with reference always favored the standardized training group and was most pronounced for incomplete outcome data (difference in Kappa 0.52, p < 0.001) and allocation concealment (difference in Kappa 0.30, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive, standardized training on risk of bias assessment may significantly improve the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Radiation Exposure and Vascular Access in Acute Coronary Syndromes: The RAD-Matrix Trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether radial access increases the risk of operator or patient radiation exposure compared to transfemoral access when performed by expert operators. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether radial access increases radiation exposure. METHODS: A total of 8,404 patients, with or without ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, were randomly assigned to radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention, and collected fluoroscopy time and dose-area product (DAP). RAD-MATRIX is a radiation sub-study of the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) trial. We anticipated that 13 or more operators, each wearing a thorax (primary endpoint), wrist, and head (secondary endpoints) lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimeter, and randomizing at least 13 patients per access site, were needed to establish noninferiority of radial versus femoral access. RESULTS: Among 18 operators, performing 777 procedures in 767 patients, the noninferiority primary endpoint was not achieved (p value for noninferiority = 0.843). Operator equivalent dose at the thorax (77 µSv) was significantly higher with radial than femoral access (41 µSv; p = 0.02). After normalization of operator radiation dose by fluoroscopy time or DAP, the difference remained significant. Radiation dose at wrist or head did not differ between radial and femoral access. Thorax operator dose did not differ for right radial (84 µSv) compared to left radial access (52 µSv; p = 0.15). In the overall MATRIX population, fluoroscopy time and DAP were higher with radial compared to femoral access: 10 min versus 9 min (p < 0.0001) and 65 Gy·cm2 versus 59 Gy·cm2 (p = 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to femoral access, radial access is associated with greater operator and patient radiation exposure when performed by expert operators in current practice. Radial operators and institutions should be sensitized towards radiation risks and adopt adjunctive radioprotective measures. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX; NCT101433627).

Prevalence and management of familial hypercholesterolaemia in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS: We aimed to assess the prevalence and management of clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 4778 patients with ACS from a multi-centre cohort study in Switzerland. Based on personal and familial history of premature cardiovascular disease and LDL-cholesterol levels, two validated algorithms for diagnosis of clinical FH were used: the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network algorithm to assess possible (score 3-5 points) or probable/definite FH (>5 points), and the Simon Broome Register algorithm to assess possible FH. At the time of hospitalization for ACS, 1.6% had probable/definite FH [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-2.0%, n = 78] and 17.8% possible FH (95% CI 16.8-18.9%, n = 852), respectively, according to the Dutch Lipid Clinic algorithm. The Simon Broome algorithm identified 5.4% (95% CI 4.8-6.1%, n = 259) patients with possible FH. Among 1451 young patients with premature ACS, the Dutch Lipid Clinic algorithm identified 70 (4.8%, 95% CI 3.8-6.1%) patients with probable/definite FH, and 684 (47.1%, 95% CI 44.6-49.7%) patients had possible FH. Excluding patients with secondary causes of dyslipidaemia such as alcohol consumption, acute renal failure, or hyperglycaemia did not change prevalence. One year after ACS, among 69 survivors with probable/definite FH and available follow-up information, 64.7% were using high-dose statins, 69.0% had decreased LDL-cholesterol from at least 50, and 4.6% had LDL-cholesterol ≤1.8 mmol/L. CONCLUSION: A phenotypic diagnosis of possible FH is common in patients hospitalized with ACS, particularly among those with premature ACS. Optimizing long-term lipid treatment of patients with FH after ACS is required.

Active surveillance for rheumatic heart disease in endemic regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence among children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic heart disease accounts for up to 250 000 premature deaths every year worldwide and can be regarded as a physical manifestation of poverty and social inequality. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease in endemic countries as assessed by different screening modalities and as a function of age. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information, African Journals Online, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for population-based studies published between Jan 1, 1993, and June 30, 2014, that reported on prevalence of rheumatic heart disease among children and adolescents (≥ 5 years to <18 years). We assessed prevalence of clinically silent and clinically manifest rheumatic heart disease in random effects meta-analyses according to screening modality and geographical region. We assessed the association between social inequality and rheumatic heart disease with the Gini coefficient. We used Poisson regression to analyse the effect of age on prevalence of rheumatic heart disease and estimated the incidence of rheumatic heart disease from prevalence data. FINDINGS: We included 37 populations in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of rheumatic heart disease detected by cardiac auscultation was 2·9 per 1000 people (95% CI 1·7-5·0) and by echocardiography it was 12·9 per 1000 people (8·9-18·6), with substantial heterogeneity between individual reports for both screening modalities (I² = 99·0% and 94·9%, respectively). We noted an association between social inequality expressed by the Gini coefficient and prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (p = 0·0002). The prevalence of clinically silent rheumatic heart disease (21·1 per 1000 people, 95% CI 14·1-31·4) was about seven to eight times higher than that of clinically manifest disease (2·7 per 1000 people, 1·6-4·4). Prevalence progressively increased with advancing age, from 4·7 per 1000 people (95% CI 0·0-11·2) at age 5 years to 21·0 per 1000 people (6·8-35·1) at 16 years. The estimated incidence was 1·6 per 1000 people (0·8-2·3) and remained constant across age categories (range 2·5, 95% CI 1·3-3·7 in 5-year-old children to 1·7, 0·0-5·1 in 15-year-old adolescents). We noted no sex-related differences in prevalence (p = 0·829).

Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool has been widely embraced by the systematic review community, but several studies have reported that its reliability is low. We aim to investigate whether training of raters, including objective and standardized instructions on how to assess risk of bias, can improve the reliability of this tool. We describe the methods that will be used in this investigation and present an intensive standardized training package for risk of bias assessment that could be used by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration and other reviewers. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pilot study. We will first perform a systematic literature review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that will be used for risk of bias assessment. Using the identified RCTs, we will then do a randomized experiment, where raters will be allocated to two different training schemes: minimal training and intensive standardized training. We will calculate the chance-corrected weighted Kappa with 95% confidence intervals to quantify within- and between-group Kappa agreement for each of the domains of the risk of bias tool. To calculate between-group Kappa agreement, we will use risk of bias assessments from pairs of raters after resolution of disagreements. Between-group Kappa agreement will quantify the agreement between the risk of bias assessment of raters in the training groups and the risk of bias assessment of experienced raters. To compare agreement of raters under different training conditions, we will calculate differences between Kappa values with 95% confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate whether the reliability of the risk of bias tool can be improved by training raters using standardized instructions for risk of bias assessment. One group of inexperienced raters will receive intensive training on risk of bias assessment and the other will receive minimal training. By including a control group with minimal training, we will attempt to mimic what many review authors commonly have to do, that is-conduct risk of bias assessment in RCTs without much formal training or standardized instructions. If our results indicate that an intense standardized training does improve the reliability of the RoB tool, our study is likely to help improve the quality of risk of bias assessments, which is a central component of evidence synthesis.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve.

BACKGROUND: The Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 2 trial demonstrated a significant reduction in subsequent coronary revascularization among patients with stable angina and at least 1 coronary lesion with a fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 who were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with best medical therapy. The economic and quality-of-life implications of PCI in the setting of an abnormal fractional flow reserve are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated the cost of the index hospitalization based on initial resource use and follow-up costs based on Medicare reimbursements. We assessed patient utility using the EQ-5D health survey with US weights at baseline and 1 month and projected quality-adjusted life-years assuming a linear decline over 3 years in the 1-month utility improvements. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on cumulative costs over 12 months. Initial costs were significantly higher for PCI in the setting of an abnormal fractional flow reserve than with medical therapy ($9927 versus $3900, P<0.001), but the $6027 difference narrowed over 1-year follow-up to $2883 (P<0.001), mostly because of the cost of subsequent revascularization procedures. Patient utility was improved more at 1 month with PCI than with medical therapy (0.054 versus 0.001 units, P<0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCI was $36 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which was robust in bootstrap replications and in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: PCI of coronary lesions with reduced fractional flow reserve improves outcomes and appears economically attractive compared with best medical therapy among patients with stable angina.

Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted systematic literature searches in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase up to November 2012, and identified additional studies through earlier meta-analyses and the references of included studies. We identified 198 studies, including 15,118 adult patients with depression, and coded moderator variables. Each of the seven psychotherapeutic interventions was superior to a waitlist control condition with moderate to large effects (range d = -0.62 to d = -0.92). Relative effects of different psychotherapeutic interventions on depressive symptoms were absent to small (range d = 0.01 to d = -0.30). Interpersonal therapy was significantly more effective than supportive therapy (d = -0.30, 95% credibility interval [CrI] [-0.54 to -0.05]). Moderator analysis showed that patient characteristics had no influence on treatment effects, but identified aspects of study quality and sample size as effect modifiers. Smaller effects were found in studies of at least moderate (Δd = 0.29 [-0.01 to 0.58]; p = 0.063) and large size (Δd = 0.33 [0.08 to 0.61]; p = 0.012) and those that had adequate outcome assessment (Δd = 0.38 [-0.06 to 0.87]; p = 0.100). Stepwise restriction of analyses by sample size showed robust effects for cognitive-behavioural therapy, interpersonal therapy, and problem-solving therapy (all d>0.46) compared to waitlist. Empirical evidence from large studies was unavailable or limited for other psychotherapeutic interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall our results are consistent with the notion that different psychotherapeutic interventions for depression have comparable benefits. However, the robustness of the evidence varies considerably between different psychotherapeutic treatments.

Evaluation of multidimensional geriatric assessment as a predictor of mortality and cardiovascular events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated Multidimensional Geriatric Assessment (MGA) as predictor of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: Currently used global risk scores do not reliably estimate mortality and MACCE in these patients. METHODS: This prospective cohort comprised 100 consecutive patients ≥ 70 years undergoing TAVI. Global risk scores (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score, EuroSCORE) and MGA-based scores (cognition, nutrition, mobility, activities of daily living [ADL], and frailty index) were evaluated as predictors of all-cause mortality and MACCE 30 days and 1 year after TAVI in regression models. RESULTS: In univariable analyses, all predictors were significantly associated with mortality and MACCE at 30 days and 1 year, except for the EuroSCORE at 30 days and instrumental ADL at 30 days and 1 year. Associations of cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR]: 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 8.31), malnutrition (OR: 6.72, 95% CI: 2.04 to 22.17), mobility impairment (OR: 6.65, 95% CI: 2.15 to 20.52), limitations in basic ADL (OR: 3.63, 95% CI: 1.29 to 10.23), and frailty index (OR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.21 to 11.19) with 1-year mortality were similar compared with STS score (OR: 5.47, 95% CI: 1.48 to 20.22) and EuroSCORE (OR: 4.02, 95% CI: 0.86 to 18.70). Similar results were found for 30-day mortality and MACCE. Bivariable analyses, including STS score or EuroSCORE suggested independent associations of MGA-based scores (e.g., OR of frailty index: 3.29, 95% CI: 1.06 to 10.15, for 1-year mortality in a model including EuroSCORE). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that risk prediction can be improved by adding MGA-based information to global risk scores. Larger studies are needed for the development and validation of improved risk prediction models.