Prioritization of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability in the United States. This article describes a prioritized research agenda about osteoarthritis management developed for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Evidence gaps were identified by reviewing existing literature and engaging diverse stakeholders to expand and refine gaps. Stakeholders ranked evidence gaps by importance from their perspectives.Prioritized evidence gaps included the need to determine or evaluate key patient-centered outcomes; optimal duration, intensity, and frequency of nonsurgical interventions; whether the comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions varies by socioeconomic factors; when and how to transition from nonsurgical to surgical interventions; effective ways to engage patients in self-management and promote long-term behavior change; standardized screening tools that improve early diagnosis; biomechanical strategies that improve symptoms; mechanisms for promoting and delivering coordinated, longitudinal care; and comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical therapies. Searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov showed many recent and ongoing studies addressing comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions; relatively few of these evaluated treatments across categories (for example, drug therapy vs. weight management) or combined categories of treatment. Few studies addressed other high-priority evidence gaps.

Prioritization of research addressing antipsychotics for adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder.

Despite a paucity of high-quality evidence about benefits and harms, antipsychotic medication use among adolescents and young adults with bipolar disorder is increasing. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute tasked the Duke Evidence Synthesis Group with creating a prioritized agenda for research in this area that would incorporate the perspectives of relevant stakeholders. We identified a list of potential evidence gaps by reviewing existing literature and engaged a diverse group of 9 stakeholders to expand and refine this list. Using a forced-ranking prioritization method, stakeholders prioritized 10 of 23 potential evidence gaps as the most pressing for future research. These evidence gaps relate to 3 areas: the comparative effectiveness of intervention strategies, the effect of antipsychotics on patient-centered outcomes, and the influence of various patient characteristics on antipsychotic effectiveness. In addition to presenting these findings, we suggest appropriate study designs for addressing the stakeholder-prioritized research questions.

The patient centered medical home. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) describes mechanisms for organizing primary care to provide high quality care across the full range of individuals' health care needs.It is being widely implemented by provider organizations and third party payers. PURPOSE: To describe approaches for PCMH implementation and summarize evidence for effects on patient and staff experiences,process of care, and clinical and economic outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (through 6 December 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through 29 June 2012). STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and longitudinal observational studies that met criteria for the PCMH, as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and included populations with multiple conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, populations, interventions,comparators, financial models, implementation methods,outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 19 comparative studies, PCMH interventions had a small positive effect on patient experiences and small to moderate positive effects on the delivery of preventive care services(moderate strength of evidence). Staff experiences were also improved by a small to moderate degree (low strength of evidence).Evidence suggested a reduction in emergency department visits(risk ratio [RR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.98]) but not in hospital admissions (RR, 0.96 [CI, 0.84 to 1.10]) in older adults (low strength of evidence). There was no evidence for overall cost savings. LIMITATION: Systematic review is challenging because of a lack of consistent definitions and nomenclature for PCMH. CONCLUSION: The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff and potentially for improving care processes,but current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes

Enabling health care decisionmaking through clinical decision support and knowledge management.

OBJECTIVES: To catalogue study designs used to assess the clinical effectiveness of CDSSs and KMSs, to identify features that impact the success of CDSSs/KMSs, to document the impact of CDSSs/KMSs on outcomes, and to identify knowledge types that can be integrated into CDSSs/KMSs. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE(®), CINAHL(®), PsycINFO(®), and Web of Science(®). REVIEW METHODS: We included studies published in English from January 1976 through December 2010. After screening titles and abstracts, full-text versions of articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed for seven domains in which sufficient studies with common outcomes were included. RESULTS: We identified 15,176 articles, from which 323 articles describing 311 unique studies including 160 reports on 148 randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for inclusion. RCTs comprised 47.5 percent of the comparative studies on CDSSs/KMSs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs effectively improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n = 25; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.58), ordering clinical studies (n = 20; OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.00), and prescribing therapies (n = 46; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.82). Fourteen CDSS/KMS features were assessed for correlation with success of CDSSs/KMSs across all endpoints. Meta-analyses identified six new success features: Integration with charting or order entry system. Promotion of action rather than inaction. No need for additional clinician data entry. Justification of decision support via research evidence. Local user involvement. Provision of decision support results to patients as well as providers. Three previously identified success features were confirmed: Automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow. Provision of decision support at time and location of decisionmaking. Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment. Only 29 (19.6%) RCTs assessed the impact of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, 22 (14.9%) assessed costs, and 3 assessed KMSs on any outcomes. The primary source of knowledge used in CDSSs was derived from structured care protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Strong evidence shows that CDSSs/KMSs are effective in improving health care process measures across diverse settings using both commercially and locally developed systems. Evidence for the effectiveness of CDSSs on clinical outcomes and costs and KMSs on any outcomes is minimal. Nine features of CDSSs/KMSs that correlate with a successful impact of clinical decision support have been newly identified or confirmed.

Transitional care after hospitalization for acute stroke or myocardial infarction: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transitional care is a time-limited service to prevent discontinuous care and adverse outcomes, including rehospitalization. PURPOSE: To describe transitional care interventions and evidence of benefit or harm in patients hospitalized for acute stroke or myocardial infarction (MI). DATA SOURCES: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE, supplemented with manual searches of reference lists of relevant studies and review articles (January 2000 to March 2012). STUDY SELECTION: 6 reviewers screened 5857 citations to identify English-language reports of trials or observational studies that compared transitional care with usual care among adults hospitalized for stroke or MI and that reported patient, caregiver, process, or systems outcomes within 1 year of hospital discharge. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on study design, quality, population, intervention characteristics, and patient- and system-level outcomes were extracted by 3 reviewers and confirmed by 1 additional reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: 62 articles representing 44 studies of transitional care for either acute stroke (27 studies) or MI (17 studies). Four intervention types were studied: hospital-initiated support (n = 14), patient and family education (n = 7), community-based support (n = 20), and chronic disease management (n = 3). Most studies (68%) were of fair quality. Overall, moderate-strength evidence showed that hospital-initiated support reduced length of stay for patients who had a stroke, and low-strength evidence showed that it reduced mortality for patients who had an MI. Evidence about benefits of other interventions and harms from transitional care services was insufficient. LIMITATIONS: Few studies had high-quality research designs. The usual care comparator was often poorly defined. Applicability to U.S. clinical practice was limited; only 6 studies were conducted in the United States. CONCLUSION: Available evidence shows that hospital-initiated transitional care can improve some outcomes in adults hospitalized for stroke or MI. Finding additional transitional care interventions that improve functional outcomes and prevent rehospitalizations and adverse events is a high priority for the growing population of patients who have an MI or a stroke. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing emphasis on the role of clinical decision-support systems (CDSSs) for improving care and reducing costs, evidence to support widespread use is lacking. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, health care processes, workload and efficiency, patient satisfaction, cost, and provider use and implementation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through January 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Investigators independently screened reports to identify randomized trials published in English of electronic CDSSs that were implemented in clinical settings; used by providers to aid decision making at the point of care; and reported clinical, health care process, workload, relationship-centered, economic, or provider use outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators extracted data about study design, participant characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 148 randomized, controlled trials were included. A total of 128 (86%) assessed health care process measures, 29 (20%) assessed clinical outcomes, and 22 (15%) measured costs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n= 25; odds ratio [OR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.58]), ordering clinical studies (n= 20; OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.47 to 2.00]), and prescribing therapies (n= 46; OR, 1.57 [CI, 1.35 to 1.82]). Few studies measured potential unintended consequences or adverse effects. LIMITATIONS: Studies were heterogeneous in interventions, populations, settings, and outcomes. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs are effective at improving health care process measures across diverse settings, but evidence for clinical, economic, workload, and efficiency outcomes remains sparse. This review expands knowledge in the field by demonstrating the benefits of CDSSs outside of experienced academic centers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 2: the patient-centered medical home).

OBJECTIVES: As part of the Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science series of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), this systematic review sought to identify completed and ongoing evaluations of the comprehensive patient-centered medical home (PCMH), summarize current evidence for this model, and identify evidence gaps. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed®, CINAHL®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for published English-language studies, and a wide variety of databases and Web resources to identify ongoing or recently completed studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators per study screened abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, abstracted data, and performed quality ratings and evidence grading. Our functional definition of PCMH was based on the definition used by AHRQ. We included studies that explicitly claimed to be evaluating PCMH and those that did not but which met our functional definition. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with comparison groups evaluated the effects of PCMH (Key Question [KQ] 1). Older adults in the United States were the most commonly studied population (8 of 17 studies). PCMH interventions had a small positive impact on patient experiences (including patient-perceived care coordination) and small to moderate positive effects on preventive care services (moderate strength of evidence [SOE]). Staff experiences were also improved by a small to moderate degree (low SOE). There were too few studies to estimate effects on clinical or most economic outcomes. Twenty-one of 27 studies reported approaches that addressed all 7 major PCMH components (KQ 2), including team-based care, sustained partnership, reorganized care or structural changes to care, enhanced access, coordinated care, comprehensive care, and a systems-based approach to quality. A total of 51 strategies were used to address the 7 major PCMH components. Twenty-two of 27 studies reported information on financial systems used to implement PCMH, implementation strategies, and/or organizational learning strategies for implementing PCMH (KQ 3). The 31 studies identified in the horizon scan of ongoing PCMH studies (KQ 4) were broadly representative of the U.S. health care system, both in geography and in the complexity of private and public health care payers and delivery networks. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies of PCMH interventions often have similar broad elements, but precise components of care varied widely. The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff, and potentially for improving care processes. However, current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes. Ongoing studies identified through the horizon scan have potential to greatly expand the evidence base relating to PCMH.

Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information.

OBJECTIVES: A 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (through December 2010) and selected other sources for relevant English-language trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: We included studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of follow-up; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Ninety-seven (97) studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs and three studies directly comparing DRIs to ACE inhibitor inhibitors or ARBs were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: A standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence. RESULTS: In spite of substantial new evidence, none of the conclusions from the 2007 review changed. The level of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use as single antihypertensive agents, as well as for superiority of ARBs for short-term adverse events (primarily cough). However, the new evidence was insufficient on long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, and differences in key patient subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Included studies were limited by follow-up duration, protocol heterogeneity, and infrequent reporting on patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

Transition of care for acute stroke and myocardial infarction patients: from hospitalization to rehabilitation, recovery, and secondary prevention.

OBJECTIVES: To review the available published literature to assess whether evidence supports a beneficial role for coordinated transition of care services for the postacute care of patients hospitalized with first or recurrent stroke or myocardial infarction (MI). This review was framed around five areas of investigation: (1) key components of transition of care services, (2) evidence for improvement in functional outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, (3) associated risks or potential harms, (4) evidence for improvement in systems of care, and (5) evidence that benefits and harms vary by patient-based or system-based characteristics. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE(®), CINAHL(®), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase(®). REVIEW METHODS: We included studies published in English from 2000 to 2011 that specified postacute hospitalization transition of care services as well as prevention of recurrent stroke or MI. RESULTS: A total of 62 articles representing 44 studies were included for data abstraction. Transition of care interventions were grouped into four categories: (1) hospital -initiated support for discharge was the initial stage in the transition of care process, (2) patient and family education interventions were started during hospitalization but were continued at the community level, (3) community-based models of support followed hospital discharge, and (4) chronic disease management models of care assumed the responsibility for long-term care. Early supported discharge after stroke was associated with reduced total hospital length of stay without adverse effects on functional recovery, and specialty care after MI was associated with reduced mortality. Because of several methodological shortcomings, most studies did not consistently demonstrate that any specific intervention resulted in improved patient-or system -based outcomes. Some studies included more than one intervention, which made it difficult to determine the effect of individual components on clinical outcomes. There was inconsistency in the definition of what constituted a component of transition of care compared to "standard care." Standard care was poorly defined, and nearly all studies were underpowered to demonstrate a statistical benefit. The endpoints varied greatly from study to study. Nearly all the studies were single-site based, and most (26 of 44) were conducted in countries with national health care systems quite different from that of the U.S., therefore limiting their generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Although a basis for the definition of transition of care exists, more consensus is needed on the definition of the interventions and the outcomes appropriate to those interventions. There was limited evidence that two components of hospital-initiated support for discharge (early supported discharge after stroke and specialty care followup after MI)were associated with beneficial effects. No other interventions had sufficient evidence of benefit based on the findings of this systematic review. The adoption of a standard set of definitions, a refinement in the methodology used to study transition of care, and appropriate selection of patient-centered and policy-relevant outcomes should be employed to draw valid conclusions pertaining to specific components of transition of care.

Cryptococcal immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome after antiretroviral therapy in AIDS patients with cryptococcal meningitis: a prospective multicenter study.

A prospective multicenter study of cryptococcal immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) was conducted as a substudy of the Bacteriology and Mycology Study Group 3-01. Of 101 AIDS patients with cryptococcal meningitis who received highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), 13 experienced cryptococcal IRIS. No association between the timing of HAART initiation and the diagnosis of IRIS was identified. Increased baseline serum cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) titer was a risk factor for cryptococcal IRIS.

A phase II randomized trial of amphotericin B alone or combined with fluconazole in the treatment of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis.

BACKGROUND: Cryptococcosis is a life-threatening infection among patients with human immunodeficientcy virus (HIV) infection. Therapeutic options for the treatment of central nervous system cryptococcosis are limited, especially in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase II trial in Thailand and the United States that compared the safety and efficacy of intravenous amphotericin B deoxycholate (AmB) 0.7 mg/kg (the standard therapy) with that of AmB 0.7 mg/kg plus fluconazole 400 mg (the low-dosage combination) or AmB 0.7 mg/kg plus fluconazole 800 mg (the high-dosage combination) administered daily for 14 days, followed by fluconazole alone at the randomized dosage (400 or 800 mg per day) for 56 days. The primary safety end point was the number of severe or life-threatening treatment-related toxicities; the primary efficacy end point was a composite of survival, neurologic stability, and negative cerebrospinal fluid culture results after 14 days of therapy. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were enrolled. There were no differences in treatment-related toxicities among the 3 arms. Toxicity was predictable and was most often related to AmB, and it included electrolyte abnormalities, anemia, nephrotoxicity, and infusion-related events. At day 14, 41%, 27%, and 54% of patients in the standard therapy, low-dosage combination, and high-dosage combination therapy arms, respectively, demonstrated successful outcomes. A trend towards better outcomes in the combination therapy arms was seen at days 42 and 70. CONCLUSIONS: AmB plus fluconazole administered at a dosage of 800 mg for 14 days, followed by fluconazole administered at a dosage of 800 mg daily for 56 days, is well-tolerated and efficacious among HIV-positive patients with central nervous system cryptococcosis. These results have significant treatment implications and should be validated in a randomized phase III trial.

A web-based endpoint adjudication system for interim analyses in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A data monitoring committee (DMC) is often employed to assess trial progress and review safety data and efficacy endpoints throughout a trail. Interim analyses performed for the DMC should use data that are as complete and verified as possible. Such analyses are complicated when data verification involves subjective study endpoints or requires clinical expertise to determine each subject's status with respect to the study endpoint. Therefore, procedures are needed to obtain adjudicated data for interim analyses in an efficient manner. In the past, methods for handling such data included using locally reported results as surrogate endpoints, adjusting analysis methods for unadjudicated data, or simply performing the adjudication as rapidly as possible. These methods all have inadequacies that make their sole usage suboptimal. PURPOSE: For a study of prophylaxis for invasive candidiasis, adjudication of both study eligibility criteria and clinical endpoints prior to two interim analyses was required. Because the study was expected to enroll at a moderate rate and the sponsor required adjudicated endpoints to be used for interim analyses, an efficient process for adjudication was required. METHODS: We created a web-based endpoint adjudication system (WebEAS) that allows for expedited review by the endpoint adjudication committee (EAC). This system automatically identifies when a subject's data are complete, creates a subject profile from the study data, and assigns EAC reviewers. The reviewers use the WebEAS to review the subject profile and submit their completed review form. The WebEAS then compares the reviews, assigns an additional review as a tiebreaker if needed, and stores the adjudicated data. RESULTS: The study for which this system was originally built was administratively closed after 10 months with only 38 subjects enrolled. The adjudication process was finalized and the WebEAS system activated prior to study closure. Some website accessibility issues presented initially. However, once these issues were resolved, the reviewers found the system user-friendly and easy to navigate. LIMITATIONS: Web-based data adjudication depends upon expeditious data collection and verification. Further, ability to use web-based technologies, in addition to clinical expertise, must be considered in selecting EAC members. CONCLUSION: The automated nature of this system makes it a practical mechanism for ensuring timely endpoint adjudication. The authors believe a similar approach could be useful for handling endpoint adjudication for future clinical trials.