Major Update 2: Antibody Response and Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: The durability of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the role of antibodies in protection against reinfection are unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and reinfection risk with a focus on gaps identified in our prior reports. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, World Health Organization Research Database, and reference lists from 16 December 2021 through 8 July 2022, with surveillance through 22 August 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, cohort studies evaluating IgG antibody duration at least 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response among immunocompromised adults, predictors of nonseroconversion, and reinfection risk. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most adults had IgG antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection at time points greater than 12 months (low strength of evidence [SoE]). Although most immunocompromised adults develop antibodies, the overall proportion with antibodies is lower compared with immunocompetent adults (moderate SoE for organ transplant patients and low SoE for patients with cancer or HIV). Prior infection provided substantial, sustained protection against symptomatic reinfection with the Delta variant (high SoE) and reduced the risk for severe disease due to Omicron variants (moderate SoE). Prior infection was less protective against reinfection with Omicron overall (moderate SoE), but protection from earlier variants waned rapidly (low SoE). LIMITATION: Single review for abstract screening and sequential review for study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment. CONCLUSION: Evidence for a sustained antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is considerable for both Delta and Omicron variants. Prior infection protected against reinfection with both variants, but, for Omicron, protection was weaker and waned rapidly. This information may have limited clinical applicability as new variants emerge. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2: A Living, Rapid Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points on the Role of the Antibody Response in Conferring Immunity Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: The strength and duration of immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 are important for public health planning and clinical practice. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on protection against reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), the World Health Organization global literature database, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID19reviews.org, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that compared the risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus infection risk in individuals with no prior infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Across 18 eligible studies, reinfection risk ranged from 0% to 2.2%. In persons with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals, 80% to 98% of symptomatic infections with wild-type or Alpha variants were prevented (high strength of evidence). In the meta-analysis, previous infection reduced risk for reinfection by 87% (95% CI, 84% to 90%), equaling 4.3 fewer infections per 100 persons in both the general population (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.071 to -0.015]) and health care workers (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.069 to -0.016]), and 26.6 fewer infections per 100 persons in care facilities (risk difference, -0.266 [CI, -0.449 to -0.083]). Protection remained above 80% for at least 7 months, but no study followed patients after the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variant. Results for the elderly were conflicting. LIMITATION: Methods to ascertain and diagnose infections varied. CONCLUSION: Before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, persons with recent infection had strong protection against symptomatic reinfections for 7 months compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals. Protection in immunocompromised persons, racial and ethnic subgroups, and asymptomatic index case patients is unclear. The durability of protection in the setting of the Delta and Omicron variants is unknown. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Health Experiences Research as a Resource and Mechanism for Veteran Engagement in VA Healthcare Research and Care Delivery.

Engaging patients in the research process helps to ensure researchers ask meaningful questions and generate useful evidence to inform healthcare decisions. In 2015, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) service convened a Veteran engagement workgroup, comprised of researchers, clinicians, and Veterans, to identify ways to integrate Veteran engagement into HSR&D. A subgroup was designated to explore the utility of health experiences research (research focused on enhancing understanding of people's experiences with healthcare and illnesses) as a mechanism to complement and broaden traditional engagement mechanisms. The subgroup recommended the VA adopt the Database of Individual Patient Experiences (DIPEx) methodology for conducting and disseminating health experiences research (HER). In this paper, we describe (1) the key components of the DIPEx approach, (2) how these components complement and broaden current methods of Veteran engagement, (3) an update on VA activities using the DIPEx approach, and (4) a roadmap for future VA HER activities.

Antibody Response After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity : A Rapid Living Review.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of detectable antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confer natural immunity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization global literature database, and Covid19reviews.org from 1 January through 15 December 2020, limited to peer-reviewed publications available in English. STUDY SELECTION: Primary studies characterizing the prevalence, levels, and duration of antibodies in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); reinfection incidence; and unintended consequences of antibody testing. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Moderate-strength evidence suggests that most adults develop detectable levels of IgM and IgG antibodies after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and that IgG levels peak approximately 25 days after symptom onset and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that IgM levels peak at approximately 20 days and then decline. Low-strength evidence suggests that most adults generate neutralizing antibodies, which may persist for several months like IgG. Low-strength evidence also suggests that older age, greater disease severity, and presence of symptoms may be associated with higher antibody levels. Some adults do not develop antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection for reasons that are unclear. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were small and had methodological limitations; studies used immunoassays of variable accuracy. CONCLUSION: Most adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR develop antibodies. Levels of IgM peak early in the disease course and then decline, whereas IgG peaks later and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate vasoconstrictor mechanisms. Fludrocortisone is a mineralocorticoid that increases blood volume and blood pressure. Fludrocortisone is considered the first- or second-line pharmacological therapy for orthostatic hypotension alongside mechanical and positional measures such as increasing fluid and salt intake and venous compression methods. However, there has been no Cochrane Review of the benefits and harms of this drug for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 11 November 2019: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We also searched trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies evaluating the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone compared to placebo, another drug for orthostatic hypotension, or studies without comparators, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies. We included studies in people with orthostatic hypotension due to a chronic peripheral neuropathy, a central autonomic neuropathy, or autonomic failure from other causes, but not medication-induced orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypotension from acute volume depletion or blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane methodological procedures for most of the review. We developed and used a tool to prioritize observational studies that offered the best available evidence where there are gaps in the evidence from RCTs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies of 513 participants, including three cross-over RCTs and 10 observational studies (three cohort studies, six case series and one case-control study). The included RCTs were small (total of 28 participants in RCTs), short term (two to three weeks), only examined fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension in people with two conditions (diabetes and Parkinson disease), and had variable risk of bias (two had unclear risk of bias and one had low risk of bias). Heterogeneity in participant populations, comparators and outcome assessment methods prevented meta-analyses of the RCTs. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone versus placebo on drop in BP in people with diabetes (-26 mmHg versus -39 mmHg systolic; -7 mmHg versus -11 mmHg diastolic; 1 cross-over study, 6 participants). For people with Parkinson disease, we found very-low certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone on drop in BP compared to pyridostigmine (-14 mmHg versus -22.1 mmHg diastolic; P = 0.036; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) and domperidone (no change after treatment in either group; 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). For orthostatic symptoms, we found very low-certainty evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo in people with diabetes (4 out of 5 analyzed participants had improvements in orthostatic symptoms, 1 cross-over study, 6 participants), for fludrocortisone versus pyridostigmine in people with Parkinson disease (orthostatic symptoms unchanged; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) or fludrocortisone versus domperidone (improvement to 6 for both interventions on the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale-Orthostatic Domain (COMPASS-OD); 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). Evidence on adverse events was also very low-certainty in both populations, but indicated side effects were minimal. Observational studies filled some gaps in evidence by examining the effects in larger groups of participants, with more diverse conditions, over longer periods of time. One cohort study (341 people studied retrospectively) found fludrocortisone may not be harmful in the long term for familial dysautonomia. However, it is unclear if this translates to long-term improvements in BP drop or a meaningful improvement in orthostatic symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of fludrocortisone on blood pressure, orthostatic symptoms or adverse events in people with orthostatic hypotension and diabetes or Parkinson disease. There is a lack of information on long-term treatment and treatment of orthostatic hypotension in other disease states. There is a need for standardized reporting of outcomes and for standardization of measurements of blood pressure in orthostatic hypotension.

Effectiveness of Models Used to Deliver Multimodal Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: a Rapid Evidence Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) face many system- and patient-level challenges in providing multimodal care for patients with complex chronic pain as recommended in some pain management guidelines. Several models have been developed to improve the delivery of multimodal chronic pain care. These models vary in their key components, and work is needed to identify which have the strongest evidence of clinically-important improvements in pain and function. Our objective was to determine which primary care-based multimodal chronic pain care models provide clinically relevant benefits, define key elements of these models, and identify patients who are most likely to benefit. METHODS: To identify studies, we searched MEDLINE® (1996 to October 2016), CINAHL, reference lists, and numerous other sources and consulted with experts. We used predefined criteria for study selection, data abstraction, internal validity assessment, and strength of evidence grading. RESULTS: We identified nine models, evaluated in mostly randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RCTs included 3816 individuals primarily from the USA. The most common pain location was the back. Five models primarily coupling a decision-support component-most commonly algorithm-guided treatment and/or stepped care-with proactive ongoing treatment monitoring have the best evidence of providing clinically relevant improvement in pain intensity and pain-related function over 9 to 12 months (NNT range, 4 to 13) and variable improvement in quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. The strength of the evidence was generally low, as each model was only supported by a single RCT with imprecise findings. DISCUSSION: Multimodal chronic pain care delivery models coupling decision support with proactive treatment monitoring consistently provide clinically relevant improvement in pain and function. Wider implementation of these models should be accompanied by further evaluation of clinical and implementation effectiveness.

Rapid Evidence Review of Mobile Applications for Self-management of Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes lack information on which commercially available applications (apps) improve diabetes-related outcomes. We conducted a rapid evidence review to examine features, clinical efficacy, and usability of apps for self-management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults. METHODS: Ovid/Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for systematic reviews and technology assessments. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were examined for primary studies. Additional searches for primary studies were conducted online, through Ovid/Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov . Studies were evaluated for eligibility based on predetermined criteria, data were extracted, study quality was assessed using a risk of bias tool, information on app features was collected, and app usability was assessed. Results are summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Fifteen articles evaluating 11 apps were identified: six apps for type 1 and five apps for type 2 diabetes. Common features of apps included setting reminders and tracking blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), medication use, physical activity, and weight. Compared with controls, use of eight apps, when paired with support from a healthcare provider or study staff, improved at least one outcome, most often HbA1c. Patients did not experience improvements in quality of life, blood pressure, or weight, regardless of app used or type of diabetes. Study quality was variable. Of the eight apps available for usability testing, two were scored "acceptable," three were "marginal," and three were "not acceptable." DISCUSSION: Limited evidence suggests that use of some commercially available apps, when combined with additional support from a healthcare provider or study staff, may improve some short-term diabetes-related outcomes. The impact of these apps on longer-term outcomes is unclear. More rigorous and longer-term studies of apps are needed. REGISTRATION: This review was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The protocol is available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/diabetes-mobile-devices/research-protocol .

Effectiveness of Intensive Primary Care Interventions: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs target complex patients with the goal of preventing hospitalizations, but programs vary, and their effectiveness is not clear. In this study, we systematically reviewed the impact of intensive primary care programs on all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department use. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects from inception to March 2017. Additional studies were identified from reference lists, hand searching, and consultation with content experts. We included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies of multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs targeting complex patients at high risk of hospitalization or death, with a comparison to usual primary care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (379,745 participants) were included. Three major intensive primary care program types were identified: primary care replacement (home-based; three RCTs, one observational study, N = 367,681), primary care replacement (clinic-based; three RCTs, two observational studies, N = 9561), and primary care augmentation, in which an interdisciplinary team was added to existing primary care (five RCTs, three observational studies, N = 2503). Most studies showed no impact of intensive primary care on mortality or emergency department use, and the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations varied. There were no adverse effects reported. DISCUSSION: Intensive primary care interventions demonstrated varying effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, and there was limited evidence that these interventions were associated with changes in mortality. While interventions could be grouped into categories, there was still substantial overlap between intervention approaches. Further work is needed to identify program features that may be associated with improved outcomes.

Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Delays in diagnostic testing after a positive result from a screening test can undermine the benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but there are few empirical data on the effects of such delays. We used microsimulation modeling to estimate the consequences of time to colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). METHODS: We used an established microsimulation model to simulate an average-risk United States population cohort that underwent annual FIT screening (from ages 50 to 75 years), with follow-up colonoscopy examinations for individuals with positive results (cutoff, 20 µg/g) at different time points in the following 12 months. Main evaluated outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality; additional outcomes were total life-years lost and net costs of screening. RESULTS: For individuals who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy within 2 weeks of a positive result from an FIT, the estimated lifetime risk of CRC incidence was 35.5/1000 persons, and mortality was 7.8/1000 persons. Every month added until colonoscopy was associated with a 0.1/1000 person increase in cancer incidence risk (an increase of 0.3%/month, compared with individuals who received colonoscopies within 2 weeks) and mortality risk (increase of 1.4%/month). Among individuals who received colonoscopy examinations 12 months after a positive result from an FIT, the incidence of CRC was 37.0/1000 persons (increase of 4%, compared with 2 weeks), and mortality was 9.1/1000 persons (increase of 16%). Total years of life gained for the entire screening cohort decreased from an estimated 93.7/1000 persons with an almost immediate follow-up colonoscopy (cost savings of $208 per patient, compared with no colonoscopy) to 84.8/1000 persons with follow-up colonoscopies at 12 months (decrease of 9%; cost savings of $100/patient, compared with no colonoscopy). CONCLUSIONS: By using a microsimulation model of an average-risk United States screening cohort, we estimated that delays of up to 12 months after a positive result from an FIT can produce proportional losses of up to nearly 10% in overall screening benefits. These findings indicate the importance of timely follow-up colonoscopy examinations of patients with positive results from FITs.

Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications.

BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov requires reporting of result summaries for many drug and device trials. PURPOSE: To evaluate the consistency of reporting of trials that are registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and published in the literature. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matched publications identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and a manual search of 2 electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: 10% random sample of phase 3 or 4 trials with results in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, completed before 1 January 2009, with 2 or more groups. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data about trial design and results from the results database and matching publications. A subsample was independently verified. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 110 trials with results, most were industry-sponsored, parallel-design drug studies. The most common inconsistency was the number of secondary outcome measures reported (80%). Sixteen trials (15%) reported the primary outcome description inconsistently, and 22 (20%) reported the primary outcome value inconsistently. Thirty-eight trials inconsistently reported the number of individuals with a serious adverse event (SAE); of these, 33 (87%) reported more SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the 84 trials that reported SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, 11 publications did not mention SAEs, 5 reported them as zero or not occurring, and 21 reported a different number of SAEs. Among 29 trials that reported deaths in ClinicalTrials.gov, 28% differed from the matched publication. LIMITATION: Small sample that included earliest results posted to the database. CONCLUSION: Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matching publications are common. Which source contains the more accurate account of results is unclear, although ClinicalTrials.gov may provide a more comprehensive description of adverse events than the publication. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is used as a bone graft substitute in spinal fusion, which unites (fuses) bones in the spine. The accuracy and completeness of journal publications of industry-sponsored trials on the effectiveness and harms of rhBMP-2 has been called into question. PURPOSE: To independently assess the effectiveness and harms of rhBMP-2 in spinal fusion and reporting bias in industry-sponsored journal publications. DATA SOURCES: Individual-patient data (IPD) from 17 industry-sponsored studies; related internal documents; and searches of MEDLINE (1996 to August 2012), other databases, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of rhBMP-2 versus any control and uncontrolled studies of harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Effectiveness outcomes in IPD were recalculated using consistent definitions. Study characteristics and results were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by another. Two investigators independently assessed quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen RCTs and 31 cohort studies were included. For lumbar spine fusion, rhBMP-2 and iliac crest bone graft were similar in overall success, fusion, and other effectiveness measures and in risk for any adverse event, although rates were high across interventions (77% to 93% at 24 months from surgery). For anterior lumbar interbody fusion, rhBMP-2 was associated with nonsignificantly increased risk for retrograde ejaculation and urogenital problems. For anterior cervical spine fusion, rhBMP-2 was associated with increased risk for wound complications and dysphagia. At 24 months, the cancer risk was increased with rhBMP-2 (risk ratio, 3.45 [95% CI, 1.98 to 6.00]), but event rates were low and cancer was heterogeneous. Early journal publications misrepresented the effectiveness and harms through selective reporting, duplicate publication, and underreporting. LIMITATIONS: Outcome assessment was not blinded, and ascertainment of harms in trials was poor. No trials were truly independent of industry sponsorship. CONCLUSION: In spinal fusion, rhBMP-2 has no proven clinical advantage over bone graft and may be associated with important harms, making it difficult to identify clear indications for rhBMP-2. Earlier disclosure of all relevant data would have better informed clinicians and the public than the initial published trial reports did. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Yale University and Medtronic.

Improving grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation evidence tables part 4: a three-arm noninferiority randomized trial demonstrates improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative formats of summary of findings (SoF) tables for single comparison with multiple outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial (RCT) in the following systematic review (SR) users: researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, health care providers, policymakers, and knowledge transfer organizations to measure understanding, accessibility, satisfaction, and preference across the current grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) SoF, an alternative GRADE SoF, or an adapted evidence-based practice center (EPC) program SoF table. RESULTS: One Hundred Seventy-Nine participants were randomized, and 129 participants completed the RCT (n = 47 current GRADE, n = 41 alternative GRADE, n = 41 adapted EPC). Understanding the certainty of evidence and treatment effect was comparable across groups. The adapted EPC SoF table was inferior for quantifying risk and RD compared to the alternatives (<35% correct vs. >85% correct). Participants reported increased satisfaction when SoF tables presented number needed to treat (NNT), anticipated absolute effect differences, and narrative syntheses for evidence that could not be meta-analyzed. Participants reported accessibility to information as significantly better in both GRADE SoF tables, when compared with the adapted EPC SoF table. Participants preferred the alternative GRADE SoF table format. CONCLUSION: The alternative GRADE SoF table is a promising format for SR users preferring a comprehensive presentation of SR results for single comparisons.

Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine-payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: a report of the ISPOR personalized medicine special interest group.

BACKGROUND: Personalized medicine technologies can improve individual health by delivering the right dose of the right drug to the right patient at the right time but create challenges in deciding which technologies offer sufficient value to justify widespread diffusion. Personalized medicine technologies, however, do not neatly fit into existing health technology assessment and reimbursement processes. OBJECTIVES: In this article, the Personalized Medicine Special Interest Group of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research evaluated key development and reimbursement considerations from the payer and manufacturer perspectives. METHODS: Five key areas in which health economics and outcomes research best practices could be developed to improve value assessment, reimbursement, and patient access decisions for personalized medicine have been identified. RESULTS: These areas are as follows: 1 research prioritization and early value assessment, 2 best practices for clinical evidence development, 3 best practices for health economic assessment, 4 addressing health technology assessment challenges, and 5 new incentive and reimbursement approaches for personalized medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Key gaps in health economics and outcomes research best practices, decision standards, and value assessment processes are also discussed, along with next steps for evolving health economics and outcomes research practices in personalized medicine.

Methods for the drug effectiveness review project.

The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was initiated in 2003 in response to dramatic increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals, which lessened the purchasing power of state Medicaid budgets. A collaborative group of state Medicaid agencies and other organizations formed to commission high-quality comparative effectiveness reviews to inform evidence-based decisions about drugs that would be available to Medicaid recipients. The Project is coordinated by the Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEbP) at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), and the systematic reviews are undertaken by the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) at OHSU and at the University of North Carolina. The reviews adhere to high standards for comparative effectiveness reviews. Because the investigators have direct, regular communication with policy-makers, the reports have direct impact on policy and decision-making, unlike many systematic reviews. The Project was an innovator of methods to involve stakeholders and continues to develop its methods in conducting reviews that are highly relevant to policy-makers. The methods used for selecting topics, developing key questions, searching, determining eligibility of studies, assessing study quality, conducting qualitative and quantitative syntheses, rating the strength of evidence, and summarizing findings are described. In addition, our on-going interactions with the policy-makers that use the reports are described.

Intensive insulin therapy in hospitalized patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) titrated to strict glycemic targets in hospitalized patients remain uncertain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of IIT in hospitalized patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1950 to January 2010, reference lists, experts, and unpublished sources. STUDY SELECTION: English-language randomized, controlled trials comparing protocols titrated to strict or less strict glycemic targets. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted data from each study on sample, setting, glycemic control interventions, glycemic targets, mean glucose levels achieved, and outcomes. Results were grouped by patient population or setting. A random-effects model was used to combine trial data on short-term mortality (≤28 days), long-term mortality (90 or 180 days), infection, length of stay, and hypoglycemia. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to rate the overall body of evidence for each outcome. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a meta-analysis of 21 trials in intensive care unit, perioperative care, myocardial infarction, and stroke or brain injury settings, IIT did not affect short-term mortality (relative risk, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.07]). No consistent evidence showed that IIT reduced long-term mortality, infection rates, length of stay, or the need for renal replacement therapy. No evidence of benefit from IIT was reported in any hospital setting, although the best evidence for lack of benefit was in intensive care unit settings. Data combined from 10 trials showed that IIT was associated with a high risk for severe hypoglycemia (relative risk, 6.00 [CI, 4.06 to 8.87]; P < 0.001). Risk for IIT-associated hypoglycemia was increased in all hospital settings. LIMITATIONS: Methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies limit the data in perioperative care, myocardial infarction, and stroke or brain injury settings. Differences in insulin protocols and patient and hospital characteristics may affect generalizability across treatment settings. CONCLUSION: No consistent evidence demonstrates that IIT targeted to strict glycemic control compared with less strict glycemic control improves health outcomes in hospitalized patients. Furthermore, IIT is associated with an increased risk for severe hypoglycemia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service.

Complexity and Challenges of the Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Long COVID.

Importance: There is increasing recognition of the long-term health effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection (sometimes called long COVID). However, little is yet known about the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID within health systems. Objective: To describe dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID in the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients with a diagnostic code for this condition (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code U09.9). Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative analysis used data from EHRs of a national random sample of 200 patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with documentation of a positive result on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021, and an ICD-10 diagnostic code for long COVID between October 1, 2021, when the code was implemented, and March 1, 2022. Data were analyzed from February 5 to May 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A text word search and qualitative analysis of patients' VA-wide EHRs was performed to identify dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID. Results: In this qualitative analysis of documentation in the VA-wide EHR, the mean (SD) age of the 200 sampled patients at the time of their first positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 in VA records was 60 (14.5) years. The sample included 173 (86.5%) men; 45 individuals (22.5%) were identified as Black and 136 individuals (68.0%) were identified as White. In qualitative analysis of documentation pertaining to long COVID in patients' EHRs 2 dominant themes were identified: (1) clinical uncertainty, in that it was often unclear whether particular symptoms could be attributed to long COVID, given the medical complexity and functional limitations of many patients and absence of specific markers for this condition, which could lead to ongoing monitoring, diagnostic testing, and specialist referral; and (2) care fragmentation, describing how post-COVID-19 care processes were often siloed from and poorly coordinated with other aspects of care and could be burdensome to patients. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of documentation in the VA EHR highlights the complexity of diagnosing long COVID in clinical settings and the challenges of caring for patients who have or are suspected of having this condition.