Communication in the neonatal ICU for Spanish speaking parents: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), health outcome disparities exist between patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) and those proficient in English. Our objective was to investigate the communication experience of parents with LEP in the NICU to learn how to mitigate such health disparities. METHODS: A certified bilingual provider conducted seventeen interviews of parents who identified Spanish as their preferred language and whose newborn was admitted to the NICU for ≥ 1 week. Interviews were conducted August 2020 - December 2021. Conventional content analysis utilizing an inductive open coding process was performed. RESULTS: The experiences of Spanish speaking parents with LEP in the NICU can be characterized by 3 main themes: 1) Information accessibility 2) Perspectives about interpreters and 3) Emotional consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can inform neonatal quality initiatives to facilitate timely and good communication for NICU families with LEP.

Engaging Stakeholders in Social Determinants of Health Quality Improvement Efforts.

Background Social determinants of health (SDOH) affect around 70% of health outcomes. However, it is not clear how to integrate SDOH into clinical practice and health care policy. This quality improvement project engaged stakeholders to identify SDOH factors relevant in an Alaska Native/American Indian health system and how to integrate SDOH data into electronic health records (EHRs). Methods The authors utilized an internal steering committee of clinical leadership; conducted focus groups with patients, practitioners, administrative staff, and clinical leaders; developed programmatic workgroups to engage with the health system; and coordinated with allied health systems. Results The Steering Committee members prioritized uses of SDOH data. Focus groups grounded work in local community values and refined SDOH subdomains. Workgroups developed data visualizations, such as EHR dashboards, to automate data collection for reporting and assess performance metrics. External stakeholders helped innovate ways to utilize SDOH data through community partnerships and advocacy work. Stakeholders liked how the holistic approach of SDOH looks at whole-person wellness and how it can improve patient-practitioner relationships and reduce health disparities. They were concerned about outdated SDOH data and how some sensitive SDOH could lead to unanticipated harms. Leaders emphasized developing an actionable, strengths-based SDOH framework. Conclusions Many initiatives call for integrating SDOH into health care and EHRs. Engaging diverse audiences helps guide the work. This engagement may be particularly helpful for minority-serving health systems. SDOH data collection can be stigmatizing for patients. Stakeholder engagement can mitigate that by identifying which SDOH data elements to prioritize, and how to utilize them.

Biological measures and diagnostic tools for Gulf War Illness - A systematic review.

AIMS: Gulf War Illness (GWI) is a chronic multisymptom illness with debated etiology and pathophysiology. This systematic review catalogues studies of validated biological tests for diagnosing GWI and of associations between biological measures and GWI for their promise as biomarkers. MAIN METHODS: We searched multiple sources through February 2020 for studies of diagnostic tests of GWI and of associations between biological measures and GWI. We abstracted data on study design, demographics, and outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies. KEY FINDINGS: We did not identify any studies validating tests of biomarkers that distinguish cases of GWI from non-cases. We included the best-fitting studies, 32 completed and 24 ongoing or unpublished studies, of associations between GWI and biological measures. The less well-fitting studies (n = 77) were included in a Supplementary Table. Most studies were of the central nervous and immune systems and indicated a significant association of the biological measure with GWI case status. Biological measures were heterogeneous across studies. SIGNIFICANCE: Our review indicates that there are no existing validated biological tests to determine GWI case status. Many studies have assessed the potential association between a variety of biological measures and GWI, the majority of which pertain to the immune and central nervous systems. More importantly, while most studies indicated a significant association between biological measures and GWI case status, the biological measures across studies were extremely heterogeneous. Due to the heterogeneity, the focus of the review is to map out what has been examined, rather than synthesize information.

A Systematic Review of Therapeutic Interventions and Management Strategies for Gulf War Illness.

INTRODUCTION: After the 1990 to 1991 conflict in the Persian Gulf, many Gulf War Veterans began reporting numerous unexplained symptoms including, but not limited to, systemic pain, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, and difficulty with memory/concentration. These symptom clusters are now referred to as Gulf War Illness (GWI). Although the etiology of GWI is still debated, as many as 250,000 former service members have been continually suffering from GWI since 1991, making the need for treatment urgent. A broad variety of treatments have been considered for GWI, but there has not been a broad and comprehensive assessment of what is known and not known about GWI treatment. We conducted a systematic review to catalogue the types of treatments that have been examined for GWI, to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of these interventions, and to identify promising and ongoing areas of future GWI treatment research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched electronic databases, trial registries, and reference lists through September 2019 for randomized controlled trial and nonrandomized controlled trial and cohort studies directly comparing interventions for Veterans with GWI to each other, placebo, or usual care. We abstracted data on study design, demographics, interventions, and outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, quality, and strength of evidence (SOE) using prespecified criteria. We resolved discordant ratings by discussion and consensus. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized controlled trials, each of which examined a different intervention for GWI. We found moderate SOE that cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise, separately and in combination, were associated with improvements in several GWI symptom domains. There was low SOE of benefit from two mindfulness-based interventions and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Mindfulness-based stress reduction improved pain, cognitive functioning, fatigue, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), whereas mind-body bridging improved fatigue, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sleep, although pain and other outcomes did not improve. Continuous positive airway pressure improved overall physical health, pain, cognitive functioning, fatigue, mental health, and sleep quality in a small study of Veterans with sleep-disordered breathing and GWI. We found moderate SOE that doxycycline is ineffective for GWI in mycoplasma DNA-positive Veterans and increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo. We also found 33 ongoing, single-arm pilot, or unpublished studies examining a variety of interventions. CONCLUSION: Cognitive behavioral therapy (moderate SOE), exercise (moderate SOE), and mindfulness-based interventions (low SOE) may be effective in improving several symptom domains in patients with GWI. Doxycycline was ineffective and associated with harms (moderate SOE). Larger, more rigorous studies are needed to confirm the benefits found in completed trials. A wide array of treatments are being assessed in ongoing trials. A sufficient evidence base will need to be developed to guide clinicians about which treatments are most likely to be effective in clinical practice and which treatments should be avoided.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of medications for stimulant use disorders in patients with co-occurring opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant (cocaine and/or methamphetamine) use has increased among people with opioid use disorder. We conducted a systematic review of medications for stimulant use disorders in this population. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials in multiple databases through April 2019, and dual-screened studies using pre-specified inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were abstinence defined as stimulant-negative urine screens for ≥3 consecutive weeks; overall use as the proportion of stimulant-negative urine specimens; and retention as the proportion of participants who completed treatment. We rated strength of evidence using established criteria and conducted meta-analyses of comparable interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-four trials of 22 medications focused on cocaine use disorder in patients with opioid use disorder. Most studies enrolled participants stabilized on opioid maintenence therapy, generally methadone. None of the six studies that assessed abstinence found significant differences between groups. We found moderate-strength evidence that antidepressants (desipramine, bupropion, and fluoxetine) worsened retention. There was moderate-strength evidence that disulfiram worsened treatment retention (N = 605, RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77 to 0.95). We found low-strength evidence that psychostimulants (mazindol and dexamphetamine) may reduce cocaine use, though the difference was not statistically significant (standard mean difference 0.35 [95 % CI -0.05 to 0.74]). There was only 1 trial for methamphetamine use disorder, which showed insufficient-strength evidence for naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Co-occurring stimulant/opioid use disorder is an important problem for targeting future research. Medication trials for methamphetamine use disorder are lacking in this population. Most of the medications studied for cocaine use were ineffective, although psychostimulants warrant further study.

Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a growing concern, and evidence-based data are needed to inform treatment options. Purpose: To review the benefits and risks of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of CUD. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and clinical trial registries from inception through September 2019. Study Selection: Pharmacotherapy trials of adults or adolescents with CUD that targeted cannabis abstinence or reduction, treatment retention, withdrawal symptoms, and other outcomes. Data Extraction: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by a second. Study quality was dually assessed, and strength of evidence (SOE) was determined by consensus according to standard criteria. Data Synthesis: Across 26 trials, the evidence was largely insufficient. Low-strength evidence was found that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) do not reduce cannabis use or improve treatment retention. Low- to moderate-strength evidence was found that buspirone does not improve outcomes and that cannabinoids do not increase abstinence rates (moderate SOE), reduce cannabis use (low SOE), or increase treatment retention (low SOE). Across all drug studies, no consistent evidence of increased harm was found. Limitations: Few methodologically rigorous trials have been done. Existing trials are hampered by small sample sizes, high attrition rates, and heterogeneity of concurrent interventions and outcomes assessment. Conclusion: Although data on pharmacologic interventions for CUD are scarce, evidence exists that several drug classes, including cannabinoids and SSRIs, are ineffective. Because of increasing access to and use of cannabis in the general population, along with a high prevalence of CUD among current cannabis users, an urgent need exists for more research to identify effective pharmacologic treatments. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018108064).

Efficacy of Biofeedback for Medical Conditions: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Biofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research. METHODS: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps. RESULTS: We included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies. DISCUSSION: Available evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated.

Pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine/amphetamine use disorder-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Addiction to methamphetamine/amphetamine (MA/A) is a major public health problem. Currently there are no pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder that have been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency. We reviewed the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for MA/A use disorder to assess the quality, publication bias and overall strength of the evidence. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library) to April 2019 for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies recruited adults who had MA/A use disorder; sample sizes ranged from 19 to 229 participants. Outcomes of interest were abstinence, defined as 3 or more consecutive weeks with negative urine drug screens (UDS); overall use, analyzed as the proportion of MA/A negative UDS specimens; and treatment retention. One SR of pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder and 17 additional RCTs met our inclusion criteria encompassing 17 different drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants and opioid antagonists). We combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality, publication bias and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. RESULTS: There was low-strength evidence from two RCTs that methylphenidate may reduce MA/A use: 6.5 versus 2.8% MA/A-negative UDS in one study (n = 34, P = 0.008) and 23 versus 16% in another study (n = 54, P = 0.047). Antidepressants as a class had no statistically significant effect on abstinence or retention on the basis of moderate strength evidence. Studies of anticonvulsants, antipsychotics (aripiprazole), opioid antagonists (naltrexone), varenicline and atomoxetine provided either low-strength or insufficient evidence of no effect on the outcomes of interest. Many of the studies had high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of low- to moderate-strength evidence, most medications evaluated for methamphetamine/amphetamine use disorder have not shown a statistically significant benefit. However, there is low-strength evidence that methylphenidate may reduce use.

Pharmacotherapy for Cocaine Use Disorder-a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for cocaine use disorder. METHODS: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) through November 2017 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in adults with cocaine use disorder. When possible, we combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of individual trials and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. Outcomes included continuous abstinence (3+ consecutive weeks); cocaine use; harms; and study retention. For relapse prevention studies (participants abstinent at baseline), we examined lapse (first cocaine positive or missing UDS) and relapse (two consecutive cocaine positive or missed UDS'). RESULTS: Sixty-six different drugs or drug combinations were studied in seven systematic reviews and 48 RCTs that met inclusion criteria. Antidepressants were the most widely studied drug class (38 RCTs) but appear to have no effect on cocaine use or treatment retention. Increased abstinence was found with bupropion (2 RCTs: RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59), topiramate (2 RCTs: RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.73), and psychostimulants (14 RCTs: RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77), though the strength of evidence for these findings was low. We found moderate strength of evidence that antipsychotics improved treatment retention (8 RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.75). DISCUSSION: Most of the pharmacotherapies studied were not effective for treating cocaine use disorder. Bupropion, psychostimulants, and topiramate may improve abstinence, and antipsychotics may improve retention. Contingency management and behavioral interventions along with pharmacotherapy should continue to be explored. SR REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42018085667.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for three retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely used to treat ocular conditions but the benefits and harms of these treatments are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to compare the effects of aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, quality of life and ocular or systemic adverse events in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and central or branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO). We searched published and unpublished literature sources to February 2017 for randomised controlled trials and cohort or modelling studies reporting comparative costs in the USA. Two reviewers extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Of 17 included trials, none reported a clinically important difference (≥ 5 letters) in visual acuity gains between agents. Nine trials provide high-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD. Three trials provide moderate-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for DME. There was low-strength evidence of similar effects between aflibercept and ranibizumab for NVAMD, aflibercept and bevacizumab for RVO and all three agents for DME. There was insufficient evidence to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for RVO. Rates of ocular adverse events were low, and systemic harms were generally similar between groups, although 1 DME trial reported more arterial thrombotic events with ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Overall, no agent had a clear advantage over another for effectiveness or safety. Aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly less cost-effective than repackaged bevacizumab in two trials. Systematic review registration number: CRD42016034076.

Antithrombotic Strategies After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of various anticoagulation strategies following surgical or transcatheter bAVR (TAVR). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and gray literature through June 2017 for controlled clinical trials and cohort studies that directly compared different antithrombotic strategies in nonpregnant adults who had undergone bAVR. We assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. RESULTS: Of 4,554 titles reviewed, 6 clinical trials and 13 cohort studies met inclusion criteria. We found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding rates are similar between aspirin and warfarin after surgical bAVR. Observational data suggest lower mortality and thromboembolic events with aspirin combined with warfarin compared with aspirin alone after surgical bAVR, but the effect size is small and the combination is associated with a substantial increase in bleeding risk. We found insufficient evidence for all other treatment comparisons in surgical bAVR. In TAVR patients, we found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, stroke, and major cardiac events are similar between dual antiplatelet therapy and aspirin alone, though a nonsignificantly lower rate of bleeding occurred with aspirin alone. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with warfarin or aspirin leads to similar outcomes after surgical bAVR. Combining aspirin with warfarin may lead to a small decrease in thromboembolism and mortality, but is accompanied by increased bleeding. For TAVR patients, aspirin is equivalent to dual antiplatelet therapy for reducing thromboembolism and mortality, with a possible decrease in bleeding.

Pay-for-Performance and Veteran Care in the VHA and the Community: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although pay-for-performance (P4P) strategies have been used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for over a decade, the long-term benefits of P4P are unclear. The use of P4P is further complicated by the increased use of non-VHA healthcare providers as part of the Veterans Choice Program. We conducted a systematic review and key informant interviews to better understand the effectiveness and potential unintended consequences of P4P, as well as the implementation factors and design features important in both VHA and non-VHA/community settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through March 2017 and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P targeting Veteran health. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed VHA stakeholders to gain further insight. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1031 titles and abstracts, of which 30 studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Twenty-five examined P4P in VHA settings and 5 in community settings. There was no strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of P4P in VHA settings. Interviews with 17 key informants were consistent with studies that identified the potential for overtreatment associated with performance metrics in the VHA. Key informants' views on P4P in community settings included the need to develop relationships with providers and health systems with records of strong performance, to improve coordination by targeting documentation and data sharing processes, and to troubleshoot the limited impact of P4P among practices where Veterans make up a small fraction of the patient population. DISCUSSION: The evidence to support the effectiveness of P4P on Veteran health is limited. Key informants recognize the potential for unintended consequences, such as overtreatment in VHA settings, and suggest that implementation of P4P in the community focus on relationship building and target areas such as documentation and coordination of care.

A systematic review of clinic and community intervention to increase fecal testing for colorectal cancer in rural and low-income populations in the United States - How, what and when?

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve fecal testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) exist, but are not yet routine practice. We conducted this systematic review to determine how implementation strategies and contextual factors influenced the uptake of interventions to increase Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) and Fecal Occult Blood Testing (FOBT) for CRC in rural and low-income populations in the United States. METHODS: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Library from January 1998 through July 2016, and Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov through March 2015, for original articles of interventions to increase fecal testing for CRC. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. A qualitative synthesis described the relationship between changes in fecal testing rates for CRC, intervention components, implementation strategies, and contextual factors. A technical expert panel of primary care professionals, health system leaders, and academicians guided this work. RESULTS: Of 4218 citations initially identified, 27 unique studies reported in 29 publications met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in primary care (n = 20, 74.1%), community (n = 5, 18.5%), or both (n = 2, 7.4%) settings. All studies (n = 27, 100.0%) described multicomponent interventions. In clinic based studies, components that occurred most frequently among the highly effective/effective study arms were provision of kits by direct mail, use of a pre-addressed stamped envelope, client reminders, and provider ordered in-clinic distribution. Interventions were delivered by clinic staff/community members (n = 10, 37.0%), research staff (n = 6, 22.2%), both (n = 10, 37.0%), or it was unclear (n = 1, 3.7%). Over half of the studies lacked information on training or monitoring intervention fidelity (n = 15, 55.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Studies to improve FIT/FOBT in rural and low-income populations utilized multicomponent interventions. The provision of kits through the mail, use of pre-addressed stamped envelopes, client reminders and in-clinic distribution appeared most frequently in the highly effective/effective clinic-based study arms. Few studies described contextual factors or implementation strategies. More robust application of guidelines to support reporting on methods to select, adapt and implement interventions can help end users determine not just which interventions work to improve CRC screening, but which interventions would work best in their setting given specific patient populations, clinical settings, and community characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, on April 16, 2015 (registration number CRD42015019557 ).

Health Disparities in Veterans: A Map of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Goals for improving the quality of care for all Veterans and eliminating health disparities are outlined in the Veterans Health Administration Blueprint for Excellence, but the degree to which disparities in utilization, health outcomes, and quality of care affect Veterans is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the research on health care disparities in the Veterans Health Administration by means of a map of the evidence. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search for research studies published from 2006 to February 2016 in MEDLINE and other data sources. We included studies of Veteran populations that examined disparities in 3 outcome categories: utilization, quality of health care, and patient health. MEASURES: We abstracted data on study design, setting, population, clinical area, outcomes, mediators, and presence of disparity for each outcome category. We grouped the data by population characteristics including race, disability status, mental illness, demographics (age, era of service, rural location, and distance from care), sex identity, socioeconomic status, and homelessness, and created maps illustrating the evidence. RESULTS: We reviewed 4249 citations and abstracted data from 351 studies which met inclusion criteria. Studies examining disparities by race/ethnicity comprised by far the vast majority of the literature, followed by studies examining disparities by sex, and mental health condition. Very few studies examined disparities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity or homelessness. Disparities findings vary widely by population and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence maps provide a "lay of the land" and identify important gaps in knowledge about health disparities experienced by different Veteran populations.

Benefits and Harms of Plant-Based Cannabis for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is available from medical dispensaries for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in many states of the union, yet its efficacy in treating PTSD symptoms remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To identify ongoing studies and review existing evidence regarding the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in treating PTSD in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, trials, and observational studies with a control group that reported PTSD symptoms and adverse effects of plant-based cannabis use in adults with PTSD. DATA EXTRACTION: Study data extracted by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence by using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two systematic reviews, 3 observational studies, and no randomized trials were found. The systematic reviews reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about benefits and harms. The observational studies found that compared with nonuse, cannabis did not reduce PTSD symptoms. Studies had medium and high risk of bias, and overall evidence was judged insufficient. Two randomized trials and 6 other studies examining outcomes of cannabis use in patients with PTSD are ongoing and are expected to be completed within 3 years. LIMITATION: Very scant evidence with medium to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in patients with PTSD, but several ongoing studies may soon provide important results. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

The Effects of Cannabis Among Adults With Chronic Pain and an Overview of General Harms: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is increasingly available for the treatment of chronic pain, yet its efficacy remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To review the benefits of plant-based cannabis preparations for treating chronic pain in adults and the harms of cannabis use in chronic pain and general adult populations. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and several other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Intervention trials and observational studies, published in English, involving adults using plant-based cannabis preparations that reported pain, quality of life, or adverse effect outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently abstracted study characteristics and assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 27 chronic pain trials, there is low-strength evidence that cannabis alleviates neuropathic pain but insufficient evidence in other pain populations. According to 11 systematic reviews and 32 primary studies, harms in general population studies include increased risk for motor vehicle accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment. Although adverse pulmonary effects were not seen in younger populations, evidence on most other long-term physical harms, in heavy or long-term cannabis users, or in older populations is insufficient. LIMITATION: Few methodologically rigorous trials; the cannabis formulations studied may not reflect commercially available products; and limited applicability to older, chronically ill populations and patients who use cannabis heavily. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, but insufficient evidence exists for other types of chronic pain. Among general populations, limited evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk for adverse mental health effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

Interventions to Improve Pharmacological Adherence Among Adults With Psychotic Spectrum Disorders and Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear as to which interventions are effective at improving medication adherence in individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. The goal of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence examining the effectiveness, harms, and costs of interventions to improve medication adherence in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of several electronic databases through January 2015 using a structured search strategy. Studies were included if they involved adult patients in general mental health settings, reported both measures of medication adherence and clinical outcomes, and were of sufficient methodological rigor. Studies were quality assessed and synthesized using established methods. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Overall, 20 studies addressed interventions in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders. These interventions varied widely, with generally mixed findings contributing to low or insufficient strength of evidence; studies involving family members and technology interventions were the most consistently associated with a positive effect; however, the strength of the evidence was low because of intervention heterogeneity. The evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of interventions in patients with bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with psychotic spectrum disorders, interventions with family members or technology had the most consistent positive effect on adherence, although replication with objective adherence measures along with evaluation of harms and costs is needed. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about interventions in individuals with bipolar disorder.

The Effects of Pay-for-Performance Programs on Health, Health Care Use, and Processes of Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of pay-for-performance (P4P) programs are uncertain. PURPOSE: To update and expand a prior review examining the effects of P4P programs targeted at the physician, group, managerial, or institutional level on process-of-care and patient outcomes in ambulatory and inpatient settings. DATA SOURCES: PubMed from June 2007 to October 2016; MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Business Economics and Theory, Business Source Elite, Scopus, Faculty of 1000, and Gartner Research from June 2007 to February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Trials and observational studies in ambulatory and inpatient settings reporting process-of-care, health, or utilization outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators extracted data, assessed study quality, and graded the strength of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 69 studies, 58 were in ambulatory settings, 52 reported process-of-care outcomes, and 38 reported patient outcomes. Low-strength evidence suggested that P4P programs in ambulatory settings may improve process-of-care outcomes over the short term (2 to 3 years), whereas data on longer-term effects were limited. Many of the positive studies were conducted in the United Kingdom, where incentives were larger than in the United States. The largest improvements were seen in areas where baseline performance was poor. There was no consistent effect of P4P on intermediate health outcomes (low-strength evidence) and insufficient evidence to characterize any effect on patient health outcomes. In the hospital setting, there was low-strength evidence that P4P had little or no effect on patient health outcomes and a positive effect on reducing hospital readmissions. LIMITATION: Few methodologically rigorous studies; heterogeneous population and program characteristics and incentive targets. CONCLUSION: Pay-for-performance programs may be associated with improved processes of care in ambulatory settings, but consistently positive associations with improved health outcomes have not been demonstrated in any setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Benefits and Harms of Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment in Adults Aged 60 Years or Older: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 150 mm Hg for adults aged 60 years or older, but the balance of benefits and harms is unclear in light of newer evidence. PURPOSE: To systematically review the effects of more versus less intensive BP control in older adults. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases through January 2015 and MEDLINE to September 2016. STUDY SELECTION: 21 randomized, controlled trials comparing BP targets or treatment intensity, and 3 observational studies that assessed harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators extracted data, assessed study quality, and graded the evidence using published criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine trials provided high-strength evidence that BP control to less than 150/90 mm Hg reduces mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98]), cardiac events (RR, 0.77 [CI, 0.68 to 0.89]), and stroke (RR, 0.74 [CI, 0.65 to 0.84]). Six trials yielded low- to moderate-strength evidence that lower targets (≤140/85 mm Hg) are associated with marginally significant decreases in cardiac events (RR, 0.82 [CI, 0.64 to 1.00]) and stroke (RR, 0.79 [CI, 0.59 to 0.99]) and nonsignificantly fewer deaths (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.69 to 1.06]). Low- to moderate-strength evidence showed that lower BP targets do not increase falls or cognitive impairment. LIMITATION: Data relevant to frail elderly adults and the effect of multimorbidity are limited. CONCLUSION: Treatment to at least current guideline standards for BP (<150/90 mm Hg) substantially improves health outcomes in older adults. There is less consistent evidence, largely from 1 trial targeting SBP less than 120 mm Hg, that lower BP targets are beneficial for high-risk patients. Lower BP targets did not increase falls or cognitive decline but are associated with hypotension, syncope, and greater medication burden. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017677).