Strong recommendations from low certainty evidence: a cross-sectional analysis of a suite of national guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines should be based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and generally include a rating of the quality of evidence and assign a strength to recommendations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance warns against making strong recommendations when the certainty of the evidence is low or very low, but has identified five paradigmatic situations (e.g. life-threatening situations) where this may be justified. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the strength of recommendations and certainty of the evidence in Irish National Clinical Guidelines using the GRADE approach. METHODS: All National Clinical Guidelines from the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) website using the GRADE approach (fully or partially) were included. All recommendations and their corresponding certainty of the evidence, strength of recommendations and justifications were extracted. Authors classified instances of strong recommendations with low certainty evidence (referred to as discordant recommendations) into one of the five paradigmatic situations. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: From the 29 NCEC Clinical Guidelines available at the time of analysis, we identified 8 guidelines using GRADE with a total of 240 recommendations; 38 recommendations did not use the GRADE approach and were excluded. Half of the included guidelines focused on emergency situations. In the final dataset of 202 recommendations, 151 (74.7%) were classified as strong and 51 (25.3%) as conditional. Of the 151 strong recommendations, 55 (36.4%) were supported by high or moderate certainty evidence and 96 (63.6%) by low or very low certainty evidence and were considered discordant. Of these 96 discordant recommendations, 55 (73.7%) were consistent with one of the five paradigmatic situations. However, none were specifically described as such within the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of discordant recommendations identified in this analysis was higher than some previous international studies (range of all strong recommendations being discordant 30-50%), but similar to other guidelines focused on emergency situations. The majority of discordant recommendations could be mapped to one of the five situations, but no National Clinical Guideline explicitly referenced this. Guideline developers require further guidance to enable greater transparency in the reporting of the reasons for discordant recommendations.

#TreatmentResistantDepression: A qualitative content analysis of Tweets about difficult-to-treat depression.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is depression unresponsive to antidepressants and affects 55% of British primary care users with depression. Current evidence is from secondary care, but long referral times mean general practitioners (GPs) manage TRD. Studies show that people with depression use Twitter to form community and document symptoms. However, Twitter remains a largely unexplored space of documented patient experience. Twitter data could provide valuable insights into learning about primary care experiences of TRD. In this study, we explored Twitter comments and conversations about TRD and produced patient-driven recommendations. METHODS: Tweets from UK-based users were collected manually and using a browser extension in June 2021. Conventional content analysis was used to provide an overview of the Tweets, followed by interpretation to understand why Twitter may be important to people with TRD. RESULTS: A total of 415 Tweets were organised into five clusters: self-diagnosis, symptoms, support, small wins and condition experts. These Tweets were interpreted as showing Twitter as a community for people with TRD. People had a collective sense of illness identity and were united in their experiences of TRD. However, users in the community also highlighted the absence of effective GP care, leading users to position themselves as condition experts. Users shared advice from a place of lived experience with the community but also shared potentially harmful information, including recommendations about nonevidence-based medications. CONCLUSIONS: Findings illuminate the benefits of the TRD Twitter community and also highlight that the perception of a lack of knowledge and support from GPs may lead community members to advise nonevidenced-based medications. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was led by a person with lived experience of TRD and bipolar. Two public contributors with mental health conditions gave feedback on our study protocol and results.

Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual circumstances and may involve the process of deprescribing. Deprescribing can cause anxiety and concern for clinicians and patients. Tailoring medication decisions often entails beyond protocol decision-making, a complex process involving emotional and cognitive work for healthcare professionals and patients. We undertook realist review to highlight and understand the interactions between different factors involved in deprescribing and to develop a final programme theory that identifies and explains components of good practice that support a person-centred approach to deprescribing in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHODS: The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how, and under what conditions they work. We conducted a search of electronic databases which were supplemented by citation checking and consultation with stakeholders to identify other key documents. The review followed the key steps outlined by Pawson et al. and followed the RAMESES standards for realist syntheses. RESULTS: We included 119 included documents from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and a final programme theory. Our programme theory recognises that deprescribing is a complex intervention influenced by a multitude of factors. The components of our final programme theory include the following: a supportive infrastructure that provides clear guidance around professional responsibilities and that enables multidisciplinary working and continuity of care, consistent access to high-quality relevant patient contextual data, the need to support the creation of a shared explanation and understanding of the meaning and purpose of medicines and a trial and learn approach that provides space for monitoring and continuity. These components may support the development of trust which may be key to managing the uncertainty and in turn optimise outcomes. These components are summarised in the novel DExTruS framework. CONCLUSION: Our findings recognise the complex interpretive practice and decision-making involved in medication management and identify key components needed to support best practice. Our findings have implications for how we design medication review consultations, professional training and for patient records/data management. Our review also highlights the role that trust plays both as a central element of tailored prescribing and a potential outcome of good practice in this area.

Tailoring cultural offers to meet the needs of older people during uncertain times: a rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: Non-medical issues (e.g. loneliness, financial concerns, housing problems) can shape how people feel physically and psychologically. This has been emphasised during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially for older people. Social prescribing is proposed as a means of addressing non-medical issues, which can include drawing on support offered by the cultural sector. METHOD: A rapid realist review was conducted to explore how the cultural sector (in particular public/curated gardens, libraries and museums), as part of social prescribing, can support the holistic well-being of older people under conditions imposed by the pandemic. An initial programme theory was developed from our existing knowledge and discussions with cultural sector staff. It informed searches on databases and within the grey literature for relevant documents, which were screened against the review's inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from these documents to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). We used the CMOCs to refine our initial programme theory. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 42 documents. CMOCs developed from these documents highlighted the importance of tailoring-shaping support available through the cultural sector to the needs and expectations of older people-through messaging, matching, monitoring and partnerships. Tailoring can help to secure benefits that older people may derive from engaging with a cultural offer-being distracted (absorbed in an activity) or psychologically held, making connections or transforming through self-growth. We explored the idea of tailoring in more detail by considering it in relation to Social Exchange Theory. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring cultural offers to the variety of conditions and circumstances encountered in later life, and to changes in social circumstances (e.g. a global pandemic), is central to social prescribing for older people involving the cultural sector. Adaptations should be directed towards achieving key benefits for older people who have reported feeling lonely, anxious and unwell during the pandemic and recovery from it.

Physical activity for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) to partake in physical activity are based on low-level evidence, do not incorporate evidence from all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and provide little information regarding potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of physical activity interventions in adults diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and to explore possible effect moderators including type, setting and nature of physical activity interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 5 November 2021. We handsearched reference lists and sought unpublished studies through trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs involving adults (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed with IBS and conducted in any setting comparing a physical activity intervention with no intervention, usual care or wait-list control group or another physical activity intervention group and assessing a validated measure of symptoms, quality of life or bowel movement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and synthesised data from other studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with data for 622 participants. Most (10/11) were set in high- or middle- to high-income countries, with five involving supervised physical activity, three unsupervised activity and three a mix of supervised and unsupervised activity. No trial was at low risk of bias. Four trials specified a minimally important difference for at least one assessed outcome measure. Data for 10 trials were obtained from published journal articles, with data for one obtained from an unpublished Masters degree thesis. Irritable bowel syndrome symptoms Six RCTs assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention compared with usual care on global symptoms of IBS. Meta-analysis of five studies showed an observed improvement in reported symptoms following physical activity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.44 to -0.42; 185 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low due to unclear and high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision from sparse data. This means physical activity may improve IBS symptoms but the evidence is very uncertain. The results of the remaining study supported the meta-analysis but were at unclear risk of bias and sample size was small. Two studies assessed the effectiveness of a yoga intervention compared with a walking intervention on global IBS symptoms. Meta-analysis of these two studies found no conclusive evidence of an effect of yoga compared with walking on IBS symptoms (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -3.93 to 1.62; 124 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of yoga interventions compared with walking interventions on IBS symptoms. Two studies assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention (yoga) compared with medication. One reported no observed difference in global IBS symptoms, though CIs were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the observed estimates and risk of bias was high (MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.65 to 0.25; 21 participants). We excluded IBS symptom data for the remaining study as it used a non-validated method. One study compared a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention and reported an observed improvement in symptoms with both interventions but neither intervention was superior to the other. Quality of life Five RCTs assessed the impact of physical activity on self-reported quality of life compared with usual care. Meta-analysis of data from four studies found no improvement in quality of life following a physical activity intervention (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.30 to 2.64; 134 participants; very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on quality-of-life outcomes in people with IBS. One study assessed the impact on quality of life of a yoga intervention compared with walking and observed an improvement in the yoga group (MD 53.45, 95% CI 38.85 to 68.05; 97 participants ).  One study reported no observed difference in quality of life between a yoga and a dietary intervention. Abdominal pain Two trials assessed the impact of physical activity compared with usual care on reported abdominal pain. Meta-analysis found no improvement in abdominal pain with physical activity compared with usual care (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50; 64 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on abdominal pain in people with IBS. One study assessing the impact of a yoga intervention compared with walking advice reported no observed differences between groups on abdominal pain. One study comparing a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention found neither intervention had a more beneficial impact than the other and both interventions did not conclusively reduce abdominal pain. There was insufficient evidence to adequately assess adverse effects associated with physical activity due to a lack of reporting in trials. One study reported a musculoskeletal injury in a yoga intervention group but this did not result in withdrawal from the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a small body of evidence suggest that physical activity comprising of yoga, treadmill exercise or support to increase physical activity may improve symptoms but not quality of life or abdominal pain in people diagnosed with IBS but we have little confidence in these conclusions due to the very low certainty of evidence. The numbers of reported adverse events were low and the certainty of these findings was very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. Discussions with patients considering physical activity as part of symptom management should address the uncertainty in the evidence to ensure fully informed decisions. If deemed sufficiently important to patients and healthcare providers, higher quality research is needed to enable more certain conclusions.

Benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone for treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis involving individual participant data and clinical study reports.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses which are highly prevalent worldwide. Risperidone and Paliperidone are treatments for either illnesses, but their efficacy compared to other antipsychotics and growing reports of hormonal imbalances continue to raise concerns. As existing evidence on both antipsychotics are solely based on aggregate data, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, using individual participant data (IPD), clinical study reports (CSRs) and publicly available sources (journal publications and trial registries). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Central, EMBASE and PsycINFO until December 2020 for randomised placebo-controlled trials of Risperidone, Paliperidone or Paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We obtained IPD and CSRs from the Yale University Open Data Access project. The primary outcome Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score was analysed using one-stage IPD meta-analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis of harm outcomes involved methods for coping with rare events. Effect-sizes were compared across all available data sources using the ratio of means or relative risk. We registered our review on PROSPERO, CRD42019140556. RESULTS: Of the 35 studies, IPD meta-analysis involving 22 (63%) studies showed a significant clinical reduction in the PANSS in patients receiving Risperidone (mean difference - 5.83, 95% CI - 10.79 to - 0.87, I2 = 8.5%, n = 4 studies, 1131 participants), Paliperidone (- 6.01, 95% CI - 8.7 to - 3.32, I2 = 4.3%, n = 13, 3821) and Paliperidone palmitate (- 7.89, 95% CI - 12.1 to - 3.69, I2 = 2.9%, n = 5, 2209). CSRs reported nearly two times more adverse events (4434 vs. 2296 publication, relative difference (RD) = 1.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.00) and almost 8 times more serious adverse events (650 vs. 82; RD = 7.93, 95% CI 6.32 to 9.95) than the journal publications. Meta-analyses of individual harms from CSRs revealed a significant increased risk among several outcomes including extrapyramidal disorder, tardive dyskinesia and increased weight. But the ratio of relative risk between the different data sources was not significant. Three treatment-related gynecomastia events occurred, and these were considered mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: IPD meta-analysis conclude that Risperidone and Paliperidone antipsychotics had a small beneficial effect on reducing PANSS score over 9 weeks, which is more conservative than estimates from reviews based on journal publications. CSRs also contained significantly more data on harms that were unavailable in journal publications or trial registries. Sharing of IPD and CSRs are necessary when performing meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics.

Understanding the role of the paramedic in primary care: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Since 2002, paramedics have been working in primary care within the United Kingdom (UK), a transition also mirrored within Australia, Canada and the USA. Recent recommendations to improve UK NHS workforce capacities have led to a major push to increase the numbers of paramedics recruited into primary care. However, gaps exist in the evidence base regarding how and why these changes would work, for whom, in what context and to what extent. To understand the ways in which paramedics impact (or not) the primary care workforce, we conducted a realist review. METHODS: A realist approach aims to provide causal explanations through the generation and articulation of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Our search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google and citation checking to locate grey literature including news items and workforce reports. Included documents were from the UK, Australia, Canada and the Americas-countries within which the paramedic role within primary care is well established. RESULTS: Our searches resulted in 205 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) within a final programme theory. Our results outline that paramedics are more likely to be effective in contributing to primary care workforces when they are supported to expand their existing role through formal education and clinical supervision. We also found that unless paramedics were fully integrated into primary care services, they did not experience the socialisation needed to build trusting relationships with patients or physicians. Indeed, for patients to accept paramedics in primary care, their role and its implications for their care should be outlined by a trusted source. CONCLUSIONS: Our realist review highlights the complexity surrounding the introduction of paramedics into primary care roles. As well as offering an insight into understanding the paramedic professional identity, we also discuss the range of expectations this professional group will face in the transition to primary care. These expectations come from patients, general practitioners (family physicians) and paramedics themselves. This review is the first to offer insight into understanding the impact paramedics may have on the international primary care workforce and shaping how they might be optimally deployed.

Evaluating the impact of a very low-cost intervention to increase practices' engagement with data and change prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial in English primary care.

BACKGROUND: Unsolicited feedback can solicit changes in prescribing. OBJECTIVES: Determine whether a low-cost intervention increases clinicians' engagement with data, and changes prescribing; with or without behavioural science techniques. METHODS: Randomized trial (ISRCTN86418238). The highest prescribing practices in England for broad-spectrum antibiotics were allocated to: feedback with behavioural impact optimization; plain feedback; or no intervention. Feedback was sent monthly for 3 months by letter, fax and email. Each included a link to a prescribing dashboard. The primary outcomes were dashboard usage and change in prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 1401 practices were randomized: 356 behavioural optimization, 347 plain feedback, and 698 control. For the primary engagement outcome, more intervention practices had their dashboards viewed compared with controls [65.7% versus 55.9%; RD 9.8%, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 4.76% to 14.9%, P < 0.001]. More plain feedback practices had their dashboard viewed than behavioural feedback practices (69.1% versus 62.4%); but not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (6.8%, 95% CI: -0.19% to 13.8%, P = 0.069). For the primary prescribing outcome, intervention practices possibly reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than controls (1.42% versus 1.12%); but again not meeting the P < 0.05 threshold (coefficient -0.31%, CI: -0.7% to 0.1%, P = 0.104). The behavioural impact group reduced broad-spectrum prescribing to a greater extent than plain feedback practices (1.63% versus 1.20%; coefficient 0.41%, CI: 0.007% to 0.8%, P = 0.046). No harms were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited feedback increased practices' engagement with data, with possible slightly reduced antibiotic prescribing (P = 0.104). Behavioural science techniques gave greater prescribing effects. The modest effects on prescribing may reflect saturation from similar initiatives on antibiotic prescribing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86418238.

Supporting social prescribing in primary care by linking people to local assets: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing is a way of addressing the 'non-medical' needs (e.g. loneliness, debt, housing problems) that can affect people's health and well-being. Connector schemes (e.g. delivered by care navigators or link workers) have become a key component to social prescribing's delivery. Those in this role support patients by either (a) signposting them to relevant local assets (e.g. groups, organisations, charities, activities, events) or (b) taking time to assist them in identifying and prioritising their 'non-medical' needs and connecting them to relevant local assets. To understand how such connector schemes work, for whom, why and in what circumstances, we conducted a realist review. METHOD: A search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google alerts and reference checking to locate grey literature. In addition, we sent a Freedom of Information request to all Clinical Commissioning Groups in England to identify any further evaluations of social prescribing connector schemes. Included studies were from the UK and focused on connector schemes for adult patients (18+ years) related to primary care. RESULTS: Our searches resulted in 118 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). These CMOCs underpinned our emerging programme theory that centred on the essential role of 'buy-in' and connections. This was refined further by turning to existing theories on (a) social capital and (b) patient activation. CONCLUSION: Our realist review highlights how connector roles, especially link workers, represent a vehicle for accruing social capital (e.g. trust, sense of belonging, practical support). We propose that this then gives patients the confidence, motivation, connections, knowledge and skills to manage their own well-being, thereby reducing their reliance on GPs. We also emphasise within the programme theory situations that could result in unintended consequences (e.g. increased demand on GPs).

Factors associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The risks of harms from opioids increase substantially at high doses, and high-dose prescribing has increased in primary care. However, little is known about what leads to high-dose prescribing, and studies exploring this have not been synthesized. We, therefore, systematically synthesized factors associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of observational studies in high-income countries that used patient-level primary care data and explored any factor(s) in people for whom opioids were prescribed, stratified by oral morphine equivalents (OME). We defined high doses as ≥ 90 OME mg/day. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, reference lists, forward citations, and conference proceedings from database inception to 5 April 2019. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. We pooled data on factors using random effects meta-analyses and reported relative risks (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) where appropriate. We also performed a number needed to harm (NNTH) calculation on factors when applicable. RESULTS: We included six studies with a total of 4,248,119 participants taking opioids, of whom 3.64% (n = 154,749) were taking high doses. The majority of included studies (n = 4) were conducted in the USA, one in Australia and one in the UK. The largest study (n = 4,046,275) was from the USA. Included studies were graded as having fair to good quality evidence. The co-prescription of benzodiazepines (RR 3.27, 95% CI 1.32 to 8.13, I2 = 99.9%), depression (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.51, I2 = 0%), emergency department visits (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.61, I2 = 0%, NNTH 15, 95% CI 12 to 20), unemployment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.63, I2 = 0%), and male gender (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.28, I2 = 78.6%) were significantly associated with the prescribing of high-dose opioids in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: High doses of opioids are associated with greater risks of harms. Associated factors such as the co-prescription of benzodiazepines and depression identify priority areas that should be considered when selecting, identifying, and managing people taking high-dose opioids in primary care. Coordinated strategies and services that promote the safe prescribing of opioids are needed. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42018088057.

Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care. METHODS: This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1-7 by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1-7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference -0.18; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1-7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).

Naltrexone-bupropion (Mysimba) in management of obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of unpublished clinical study reports.

AIMS: To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports. METHODS: We searched Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov (May 2016) to identify pivotal trials; we then sent a freedom of information request to the European Medicines Agency (July 2016). We included pivotal, phase III placebo-controlled trials. We assessed the risks of bias using the Cochrane criteria, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses. RESULTS: Over a 27-month period (July 2016 to August 2018), we received 31 batches of clinical study report documents containing over 65 000 pages of data from 4 pivotal trials (n = 4536). Significantly more participants who took naltrexone-bupropion achieved ≥5% reduction in body weight: risk ratio (RR) = 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.35-3.28), P = .001, GRADE = low, number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit = 5 (3-17); this represents a 2.53 kg (1.85-3.21) reduction in baseline body weight compared with placebo. Naltrexone-bupropion had significantly beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors; however, the true effect sizes for these are uncertain because of incomplete outcome data. Naltrexone-bupropion significantly increased the risk of adverse events: RR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18, P = .0004, GRADE = low, NNT to harm = 12 7-27); serious adverse events: RR = 1.70 (1.38-2.1, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to harm = 21 13-38); and discontinuation because of adverse events: RR = 1.92 (1.65-2.24, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to discontinue treatment = 9 8-13). CONCLUSIONS: Naltrexone-bupropion significantly reduces body weight by a small amount but significantly increases the risk of adverse events. A rigorous process of postmarketing surveillance is required.

Time trends and geographical variation in prescribing of antibiotics in England 1998-2017.

Background: Reducing antibiotic overuse is a key NHS priority. The majority of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care. Objectives: To describe antibiotic prescribing trends in NHS England primary care for the years 1998-2017 using various measures. We investigated trends and variation between practices and geographical areas, out-of-hours prescribing, and seasonality. Methods: We used publicly available prescribing datasets and calculated antibiotic prescribing rates per 1000 age-sex-adjusted population units, percentage prescribed as broad-spectrum, and course length. We report national time trends for 1998-2016, geographical variation across 2017 and variation trends for 2010-17. We calculated percentiles and ranges, and plotted maps. Results: The overall rate of antibiotic prescribing has reduced by 18% since 2010, with the steepest decline since 2013. The percentage prescribed as broad-spectrum declined since 2006, from 18.0 to 8.4. Between the best and worst Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) there was 2-fold variation for total antibiotic prescribing, but 7-fold variation for cephalosporins. Variation across general practices has declined. The CCG to which a practice belongs accounted for 12.6% of current variation (P < 0.0001). Higher antibiotic prescribing was associated with greater practice size, proportion of patients >65 years or <18 years, ruralness and deprivation. Seasonal increases have been declining for most antibiotics. If every practice prescribed antibiotics at the lowest decile rate in 2017, 10.8 million fewer prescriptions could have been issued (34%). Compared with standard practices, out-of-hours practices prescribed a greater proportion of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions: Despite a general trend towards more optimal antibiotic prescribing, considerable geographical variation persists across England's practices and CCGs.

Medications that reduce emergency hospital admissions: an overview of systematic reviews and prioritisation of treatments.

BACKGROUND: Rates of emergency hospitalisations are increasing in many countries, leading to disruption in the quality of care and increases in cost. Therefore, identifying strategies to reduce emergency admission rates is a key priority. There have been large-scale evidence reviews to address this issue; however, there have been no reviews of medication therapies, which have the potential to reduce the use of emergency health-care services. The objectives of this study were to review systematically the evidence to identify medications that affect emergency hospital admissions and prioritise therapies for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS: This was a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews & Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Google Scholar and the websites of ten major funding agencies and health charities, using broad search criteria. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that examined the effect of any medication on emergency hospital admissions among adults. We assessed the quality of reviews using AMSTAR. To prioritise therapies, we assessed the quality of trial evidence underpinning meta-analysed effect estimates and cross-referenced the evidence with clinical guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 140 systematic reviews, which included 1968 unique randomised controlled trials and 925,364 patients. Reviews contained 100 medications tested in 47 populations. We identified high-to moderate-quality evidence for 28 medications that reduced admissions. Of these medications, 11 were supported by clinical guidelines in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. These 11 therapies were for patients with heart failure (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, aldosterone receptor antagonists and digoxin), stable coronary artery disease (intensive statin therapy), asthma exacerbations (early inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department and anticholinergics), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists) and schizophrenia (second-generation antipsychotics and depot/maintenance antipsychotics). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 11 medications supported by strong evidence and clinical guidelines that could be considered in quality monitoring and improvement strategies to help reduce emergency hospital admission rates. The findings are relevant to health systems with a large burden of chronic disease and those managing increasing pressures on acute health-care services.

Device-Guided Breathing for Hypertension: a Summary Evidence Review.

Persistently raised blood pressure is one of the major risk factors for diseases such as myocardial infarction and stroke. Uncontrolled hypertension is also associated with high rates of mortality, particularly in middle and high-income countries. Lifestyle factors such as poor diet, obesity, physical inactivity and smoking are all thought to contribute to the development of hypertension. As a result, the management of hypertension should begin with modifying these lifestyle factors. Beyond this, drug interventions are used as the predominant form of management. However, adherence to medications can be highly variable, medication side effects are common, and may require regular monitoring or, in some individuals may be ineffective. Therefore, additional non-pharmacologic interventions that lower blood pressure may be advantageous when combined with lifestyle modifications. Such interventions may include relaxation therapies such as slow breathing exercises, which can be initiated by means of specific devices. The technique of device-guided breathing (DGB) has been considered by guideline developers in the management of hypertension. One specific device, the Resperate, has received US FDA and UK NHS approval over the last few years. In this review, we summarise the evidence base on efficacy and find that although some clinical trials exist that demonstrate a BP-lowering effect, others do not. There is currently insufficient evidence from pooled data to recommend the routine use of device-guided breathing in hypertensive patients.

Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring. SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions . SELECTION CRITERIA: Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 82%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Participants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.

'Spin' in reports of clinical research.

Clinical research is frequently hampered by flaws in its design or conduct. Such biases have been well documented. However, reports of clinical research may also be biased and present results in a more favourable way than they deserve or downplay harms. Such 'spin' in reporting has been demonstrated empirically. This short commentary summarises some of the problems with spin in reports of clinical research as well as signposts to some of the empirical evidence demonstrating its effect.

Estimating the diagnostic accuracy of rheumatoid factor in UK primary care: a study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of RF as a test for RA in primary care and its impact on referral times using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. METHODS: We identified all patients with a first RF test recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2008 and those diagnosed with RA within 2 years of testing. We calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of RF for a diagnosis of RA. We compared time to hospital referral in those testing positive and negative using Kaplan-Meier failure curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 62 436 first RF tests, 4679 (7.5%) were positive. There were 1753 incident cases of RA, of which 57.8% were seropositive. The positive LR for RF was 9.5 (95% CI 9.0, 10.0) and the negative LR was 0.5 (95% CI 0.4, 0.5). Sensitivity and specificity were 57.8% (95% CI 55.4%, 60.1%) and 93.9% (95% CI 93.7%, 94.1%) and the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 21.4% (95% CI 20.3%, 22.6%) and 98.7% (95% CI 98.6%, 98.8%), respectively. Median time to first hospital contact after the first RF test in those with seropositive vs seronegative results was 54 days (95% CI 49, 58) vs 150 (95% CI 147, 152). CONCLUSION: Only 2.8% of patients undergoing RF testing were diagnosed with RA, suggesting that RF is used to screen patients with musculoskeletal symptoms rather than those with more specific features of RA. A positive RF test may be helpful in diagnosing RA in primary care but performs badly in excluding RA and may delay referral.

The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Primary Care: A Meta-Analytic Review.

PURPOSE: Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients. METHODS: We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models. RESULTS: The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I(2) = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0; P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.