Effectiveness of combination therapy with statin and another lipid-modifying agent compared with intensified statin monotherapy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Some patients do not tolerate or respond to high-intensity statin monotherapy. Lower-intensity statin combined with nonstatin medication may be an alternative, but the benefits and risks compared with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy are unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical benefits, adherence, and harms of lower-intensity statin combination therapy with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy among adults at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 2013, with an updated MEDLINE search through November 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials published in English. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted information on study design, population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes (deaths, ASCVD events, low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol level, adherence, and adverse events). Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 36 trials were included. Low-intensity statin plus bile acid sequestrant decreased LDL cholesterol level 0% to 14% more than mid-intensity monotherapy among high-risk hyperlipidemic patients. Mid-intensity statin plus ezetimibe decreased LDL cholesterol level 5% to 15% and 3% to 21% more than high-intensity monotherapy among patients with ASCVD and diabetes mellitus, respectively. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate LDL cholesterol for fibrates, niacin, and ω-3 fatty acids. Evidence was insufficient for long-term clinical outcomes, adherence, and harms for all regimens. LIMITATION: Many trials had short durations and high attrition rates, lacked blinding, and did not assess long-term clinical benefits or harms. CONCLUSION: Clinicians could consider using lower-intensity statin combined with bile acid sequestrant or ezetimibe among high-risk patients intolerant of or unresponsive to statins; however, this strategy should be used with caution given the lack of evidence on long-term clinical benefits and harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is an acquired degeneration of the optic nerve and a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Medical and surgical treatments that decrease intraocular pressure may prevent visual impairment and blindness. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of medical, laser, and surgical treatments in adults with open-angle glaucoma with regard to decreasing intraocular pressure and preventing optic nerve damage, vision loss, and visual impairment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and an existing database for systematic reviews (through 2 March 2011); MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL for primary studies (through 30 July 2012). STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews; randomized, controlled trials; and quasi-randomized, controlled trials for most outcomes and observational studies for quality of life and harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators abstracted or checked information about study design, participants, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: High-level evidence suggests that medical, laser, and surgical treatments decrease intraocular pressure and that medical treatment and trabeculectomy reduce the risk for optic nerve damage and visual field loss compared with no treatment. The direct effect of treatments on visual impairment and the comparative efficacy of different treatments are not clear. Harms of medical treatment are primarily local (ocular redness, irritation); surgical treatment carries a small risk for more serious complications. LIMITATION: Heterogeneous outcome definitions and measurements among the included studies; exclusion of many treatment studies that did not stratify results by glaucoma type. CONCLUSION: Medical and surgical treatments for open-angle glaucoma lower intraocular pressure and reduce the risk for optic nerve damage over the short to medium term. Which treatments best prevent visual disability and improve patient-reported outcomes is unclear.

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma: a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Allergic rhinitis affects up to 40% of the US population. To desensitize allergic individuals, subcutaneous injection immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy may be administered. In the United States, sublingual immunotherapy is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, some US physicians use aqueous allergens, off-label, for sublingual desensitization. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of aqueous sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through December 22, 2012. English-language randomized controlled trials were included if they compared sublingual immunotherapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other sublingual immunotherapy regimens and reported clinical outcomes. Studies of sublingual immunotherapy that are unavailable in the United States and for which a related immunotherapy is unavailable in the United States were excluded. Paired reviewers selected articles and extracted the data. The strength of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was graded based on the risk of bias (scored on allocation, concealment of intervention, incomplete data, sponsor company involvement, and other bias), consistency, magnitude of effect, and the directness of the evidence. RESULTS: Sixty-three studies with 5131 participants met the inclusion criteria. Participants' ages ranged from 4 to 74 years. Twenty studies (n = 1814 patients) enrolled only children. The risk of bias was medium in 43 studies (68%). Strong evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy improves asthma symptoms, with 8 of 13 studies reporting greater than 40% improvement vs the comparator. Moderate evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy use decreases rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, with 9 of 36 studies demonstrating greater than 40% improvement vs the comparator. Medication use for asthma and allergies decreased by more than 40% in 16 of 41 studies of sublingual immunotherapy with moderate grade evidence. Moderate evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy improves conjunctivitis symptoms (13 studies), combined symptom and medication scores (20 studies), and disease-specific quality of life (8 studies). Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The overall evidence provides a moderate grade level of evidence to support the effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, but high-quality studies are still needed to answer questions regarding optimal dosing strategies. There were limitations in the standardization of adverse events reporting, but no life-threatening adverse events were noted in this review.

Non-pharmacologic treatments for symptoms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review.

Objective: To systematically assess benefits and harm of non-pharmacologic interventions for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) symptoms.Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1966 to May 24, 2016 for randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, evaluated risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for critical outcomes (pain and quality-of-life).Results: Twenty-three trials were included. For pain, alpha-lipoic acid was more effective than placebo (moderate SOE) and frequency-modulated electromagnetic stimulation was more effective than sham (low SOE) in the short-term but not the long-term. Electrical stimulation (including transcutaneous) was not effective for pain (low SOE). Spinal cord stimulation was more effective than usual care for pain (low SOE), but had serious complications, and studies had no sham arm. Evidence for cognitive behavioral therapy and acupuncture was insufficient; no exercise or physical therapy trials met inclusion criteria. No interventions reported sufficient evidence on quality-of-life. Most studies were short-term with unclear risk of bias.Conclusions: Alpha-lipoic acid and spinal cord stimulation were effective for pain; studies were short-term with quality deficits. Spinal cord stimulation had serious adverse events. Further research should address long-term outcomes and other non-pharmacologic treatments.

Pharmacotherapy for diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain and quality of life: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the effect of pharmacologic treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) on pain and quality of life. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews from 2011 to October 12, 2015, and PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for primary studies from January 1, 2013, to May 24, 2016. We searched Clinicaltrials.gov on March 9, 2016. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, and independently evaluated risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE). RESULTS: We updated a recently completed systematic review of 57 eligible studies with 24 additional published studies and 25 unpublished studies. For reducing neuropathy-related pain, the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine (moderate SOE), the anticonvulsants pregabalin and oxcarbazepine (low SOE), the drug classes tricyclic antidepressants (low SOE) and atypical opioids (low SOE), and botulinum toxin (low SOE) were more effective than placebo. We could not draw conclusions about quality of life due to incomplete reporting. All studies were short-term (less than 6 months), and all effective drugs had more than 9% dropouts from adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: For reducing pain, duloxetine and venlafaxine, pregabalin and oxcarbazepine, tricyclic antidepressants, atypical opioids, and botulinum toxin were more effective than placebo. However, quality of life was poorly reported, studies were short-term, drugs had substantial dropout rates, and opioids have significant risks. Future studies should evaluate longer-term outcomes, use methods and measures recommended by pain organizations, and assess patients' quality of life.

Performance and Pain Tolerability of Current Diagnostic Allergy Skin Prick Test Devices.

BACKGROUND: Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. METHODS: Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P < .001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P < .001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0% to 45% with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100% for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices. CONCLUSIONS: All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.

Varenicline and cardiovascular adverse events: a perspective review.

Smoking is a leading preventable cause of mortality and morbidity. Varenicline, a first-line smoking cessation aid, is used widely to achieve successful quit rates in smokers. A number of studies and systematic reviews have evaluated the safety profile of the drug. To date, three systematic reviews by Singh and colleagues, Prochaska and Hilton, and Ware and colleagues, published between 2011 and 2013, have evaluated serious cardiovascular adverse events with varenicline use. Even though all three reviews demonstrated that serious cardiovascular adverse events were nominally more frequent in varenicline-treated patients when compared with placebo, a significantly increased event rate was found only in the review by Singh and colleagues. The three reviews included similar trials but differed in the evaluation of outcomes and performance of summary statistic computation. Though the evidence from the two most recent systematic reviews demonstrated that risk of serious cardiovascular events might not be increased with varenicline use, the US Food and Drug Administration has advised prescription with caution combined with close monitoring and education of patients until more conclusive evidence is available. Results of these reviews cannot be generalized to patients with unstable cardiac conditions.

Effectiveness of subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: current update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The effectiveness of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in treatment of patients suffering from allergic rhinitis have been evaluated in a number of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted over the past few decades. Currently, there is a growing interest in evaluating comparative effectiveness of SCIT versus SLIT to identify whether one form of immunotherapy is better than the other. In this current update, we discuss pertinent systematic reviews that have addressed this concern. RECENT FINDINGS: The four systematic reviews identified in this update are the only reviews of effectiveness of SCIT versus SLIT for allergic rhinitis available in the literature. Through direct and indirect comparisons, these four reviews demonstrate that SCIT is better than SLIT in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis and rescue medication use in adults and children. However, there was no difference between the two forms of immunotherapy in reducing combined symptom-medication scores and improving quality of life. With regard to safety, SLIT had fewer systemic reactions when compared with SCIT. SUMMARY: The evidence of effectiveness of SCIT versus SLIT was principally derived from indirect comparisons and meta-regression. Additional randomized controlled trials of head-to-head comparisons of SCIT versus SLIT are required to strengthen this evidence base. Future research should focus on development of standardized outcome assessment, allergen dosing, content, and treatment regimes.

Effectiveness of subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma, using formulations currently approved in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: We searched the following databases up to May 21, 2012: MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials published in English comparing SCIT to placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other SCIT regimens that reported clinical outcomes of interest. Studies of adults or mixed age populations were included. Studies were excluded if the diagnosis of allergy and/or asthma was not confirmed with objective testing. Paired reviewers selected articles for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias for each study and graded the strength of evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, or low. RESULTS: Sixty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. Majority of the studies (66%) evaluated single-allergen immunotherapy regimens. The literature provides high-grade evidence that SCIT reduces asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, conjunctivitis symptoms, and rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis disease-specific quality of life in comparison to placebo or usual care. There is moderate evidence that SCIT decreases rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis medication usage. Respiratory reactions were the most common systemic reaction. There were few reports of anaphylaxis; no deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Generally moderate to strong evidence supports the effectiveness of SCIT for treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, particularly with single-allergen immunotherapy regimens. Adverse reactions to SCIT are common, but no deaths were reported in the included studies.

The effectiveness of prophylactic inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Trauma is known to be one of the strongest risk factors for pulmonary embolism (PE). Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin therapy for prevention of PE, but trauma places some patients at risk of excess bleeding. Experts are divided on the role of prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filters to prevent PE. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the comparative effectiveness of prophylactic IVC filters in trauma patients, particularly in preventing PE, fatal PE, and mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched the following databases for primary studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, clinicaltrial.gov, and the Cochrane Library (all through July 31, 2012). We developed a search strategy using medical subject headings terms and text words of key articles that we identified a priori. We reviewed the references of all included articles, relevant review articles, and related systematic reviews to identify articles the database searches might have missed. STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed titles followed by abstracts to identify randomized clinical trials or observational studies with comparison groups reporting on the effectiveness and/or safety of IVC filters for prevention of venous thromboembolism in trauma patients. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and abstracted data. For studies amenable to pooling with meta-analysis, we pooled using the random-effects model to analyze the relative risks. We graded the quantity, quality, and consistency of the evidence by adapting an evidence-grading scheme recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: Eight controlled studies compared the effectiveness of no IVC filter vs IVC filter on PE, fatal PE, deep vein thrombosis, and/or mortality in trauma patients. Evidence showed a consistent reduction of PE (relative risk, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.06-0.70]; I(2)=0%) and fatal PE (0.09 [0.01-0.81]; I(2)=0%) with IVC filter placement, without any statistical heterogeneity. We found no significant difference in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (relative risk, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.50-6.19]; P=.38; I(2)=56.8%) or mortality (0.70 [0.40-1.23]; I(2)=6.7%). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 additional PE with IVC filters is estimated to range from 109 (95% CI, 93-190) to 962 (819-2565), depending on the baseline PE risk. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The strength of evidence is low but supports the association of IVC filter placement with a lower incidence of PE and fatal PE in trauma patients. Which patients experience benefit enough to outweigh the harms associated with IVC filter placement remains unclear. Additional well-designed observational or prospective cohort studies may be informative.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for pediatric asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is approved in the United States for the treatment of pediatric asthma and rhinitis; sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) does not have regulatory approval but is used in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of pediatric asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded the strength of evidence for each clinical outcome. All studies were randomized controlled trials of children with allergic asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis treated with SCIT or an aqueous formulation of SLIT. Data sources were Medline, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2012. RESULTS: In 13 trials, 920 children received SCIT or usual care; in 18 studies, 1583 children received SLIT or usual care. Three studies compared SCIT with SLIT head-to-head in 135 children. The strength of evidence is moderate that SCIT improves asthma and rhinitis symptoms and low that SCIT improves conjunctivitis symptoms and asthma medication scores. Strength of evidence is high that SLIT improves asthma symptoms and moderate that SLIT improves rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms and decreases medication usage. The evidence is low to support SCIT over SLIT for improving asthma or rhinitis symptoms or medication usage. Local reactions were frequent with SCIT and SLIT. There was 1 report of anaphylaxis with SCIT. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis in children.

Effectiveness of subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy is widely used in the management of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma, but the best route of delivery is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of studies with head-to-head comparison of effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched through December 21, 2012. We included English language randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and/or asthma with head-to-head comparisons of SCIT with SLIT. Paired reviewers extracted detailed information from included articles on standardized forms and assessed the risk of bias in each article. RESULTS: Eight trials compared the effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. The effectiveness of the 2 forms of immunotherapy in managing allergic asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis were reported in 4 and 6 clinical trials, respectively. Low-grade evidence supports greater effectiveness of SCIT than SLIT for asthma symptom reduction and also at reducing a combined measure of rhinitis symptoms and medication use. Moderate-grade evidence supports greater effectiveness of SCIT than SLIT for nasal and/or eye symptom reduction. All 8 trials reported on adverse events with an episode of anaphylaxis reported in a child treated with SCIT. CONCLUSION: Our review provides low-grade evidence to support that SCIT is superior to SLIT for reduction in asthma symptoms and moderate-grade evidence for reduction of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Additional studies are required to strengthen this evidence base for clinical decision making.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: There is considerable practice variation and clinical uncertainty about the choice of prophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients with traumatic brain injury. We performed a systematic review to assess both the effectiveness and safety of pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis, and the optimal time to initiate pharmacologic prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with traumatic brain injury. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, SCOPUS, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, clinicaltrial.gov, and the Cochrane Library were searched in July 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting on the effectiveness or safety of venous thromboembolism prevention in traumatic brain injury patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers extracted detailed information from included articles on standardized forms and assessed the risk of bias in each article. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 10 cohort studies) evaluated the effectiveness and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury. Five of the included studies assessed the optimal timing of initiation of pharmacological prophylaxis. Low grade evidence supports the effectiveness of enoxaparin over control in reducing deep vein thrombosis. Low grade evidence also supports the safety of unfractionated heparin over control in reducing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury. Evidence was insufficient for remaining comparisons and outcomes including the optimal timing of initiation of pharmacoprophylaxis. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that pharmacoprophylaxis improves deep vein thromboses and mortality outcomes in patients hospitalized with traumatic brain injury. Additional studies are required to strengthen this evidence base.

A systematic review of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis strategies in patients with renal insufficiency, obesity, or on antiplatelet agents.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about optimal strategies for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among select populations such as patients with renal insufficiency, obesity, or patients taking antiplatelet drugs including aspirin. Their physiologies make prophylaxis particularly challenging. PURPOSE: We performed a comparative effectiveness review of the literature on efficacy and safety of VTE prophylaxis in these populations. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, clinicaltrial.gov, and the Cochrane Library through August 2012. Eligible studies included controlled trials and observational studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers evaluated studies for eligibility, serially abstracted data, and independently evaluated the risk of bias and strength of evidence supporting interventions to prevent VTE in these populations. RESULTS: After a review of 30,902 citations, we identified 9 controlled studies, 5 of which were trials, and the other 4 were observational studies. Five articles addressed prophylaxis of patients with renal insufficiency, 2 addressed obese patients, and 2 addressed patients on antiplatelet agents. No study tested prophylaxis in underweight patients or those with liver disease. The majority of observational studies had a high risk of bias. The strength of evidence ranged from low to insufficient regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of VTE prophylaxis among these patients. CONCLUSION: The current evidence is insufficient regarding optimal VTE prophylaxis for patients with renal insufficiency, obesity, or those who are on antiplatelet drugs including aspirin. High-quality studies are needed to inform clinicians about the best VTE prophylaxis for these patients.

Pharmacologic and mechanical strategies for preventing venous thromboembolism after bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We sought to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacologic and mechanical strategies to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We searched (through August 2012) for primary studies that had at least 2 different interventions. Of 30,902 citations, we identified 8 studies of pharmacologic strategies and 5 studies of filter placement. No studies randomized patients to receive different interventions. One study suggested that low-molecular-weight heparin is more efficacious than unfractionated heparin in preventing VTE (0.25% vs 0.68%, P < .001), with no significant difference in bleeding. One study suggested that prolonged therapy (after discharge) with enoxaparin sodium may prevent VTE better than inpatient treatment only. There was insufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis that filters reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism, with a point estimate suggesting increased rates with filters (pooled relative risk [RR], 1.21 95% CI, 0.57-2.56). There was low-grade evidence that filters are associated with higher mortality (pooled RR, 4.30 95% CI, 1.60-11.54) and higher deep vein thrombosis rates (2.94 1.35-6.38). There was insufficient evidence to support that augmented subcutaneous enoxaparin doses (>40 mg daily or 30 mg twice daily) are more efficacious than standard dosing, with a trend toward increased bleeding. Of note, for both filters and augmented pharmacologic dosing strategies, patients at highest risk for VTE were more likely to receive more intensive interventions, limiting our ability to attribute outcomes to prophylactic strategies used.

Interventions to modify health care provider adherence to asthma guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health care provider adherence to asthma guidelines is poor. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of interventions to improve health care providers' adherence to asthma guidelines on health care process and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data sources included Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, and Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education up to July 2012. Paired investigators independently assessed study eligibility. Investigators abstracted data sequentially and independently graded the evidence. RESULTS: Sixty-eight eligible studies were classified by intervention: decision support, organizational change, feedback and audit, clinical pharmacy support, education only, quality improvement/pay-for-performance, multicomponent, and information only. Half were randomized trials (n = 35). There was moderate evidence for increased prescriptions of controller medications for decision support, feedback and audit, and clinical pharmacy support and low-grade evidence for organizational change and multicomponent interventions. Moderate evidence supports the use of decision support and clinical pharmacy interventions to increase provision of patient self-education/asthma action plans. Moderate evidence supports use of decision support tools to reduce emergency department visits, and low-grade evidence suggests there is no benefit for this outcome with organizational change, education only, and quality improvement/pay-for-performance. CONCLUSIONS: Decision support tools, feedback and audit, and clinical pharmacy support were most likely to improve provider adherence to asthma guidelines, as measured through health care process outcomes. There is a need to evaluate health care provider-targeted interventions with standardized outcomes.