PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews: Management of osteoarthritis in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain respond to various non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included meta-analysis of responder outcomes for at least 1 of the following interventions were included: acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, cannabinoids, counseling, exercise, platelet-rich plasma, viscosupplementation, glucosamine, chondroitin, intra-articular corticosteroids, rubefacients, or opioids. SYNTHESIS: In total, 235 systematic reviews were included. Owing to limited reporting of responder meta-analyses, a post hoc decision was made to evaluate individual RCTs with responder analysis within the included systematic reviews. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. A total of 155 RCTs were included. Interventions that led to more patients attaining meaningful pain relief compared with control included exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 2.36; 95% CI 1.79 to 3.12), intra-articular corticosteroids (RR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.62), SNRIs (RR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.87), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.52), glucosamine (RR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.74), topical NSAIDs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.38), chondroitin (RR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), viscosupplementation (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33), and opioids (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32). Preplanned subgroup analysis demonstrated no effect with glucosamine, chondroitin, or viscosupplementation in studies that were only publicly funded. When trials longer than 4 weeks were analyzed, the benefits of opioids were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Interventions that provide meaningful relief for chronic osteoarthritis pain might include exercise, intra-articular corticosteroids, SNRIs, oral and topical NSAIDs, glucosamine, chondroitin, viscosupplementation, and opioids. However, funding of studies and length of treatment are important considerations in interpreting these data.

Opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the best available evidence regarding various topics related to primary care management of opioid use disorder (OUD). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google, and the references of included studies and relevant guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews and newer randomized controlled trials from the past 5 to 10 years that investigated patient-oriented outcomes related to managing OUD in primary care, diagnosis, pharmacotherapies (including buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), tapering strategies, psychosocial interventions, prescribing practices, and management of comorbidities. SYNTHESIS: From 8626 articles, 39 systematic reviews and an additional 26 randomized controlled trials were included. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. One cohort study suggests 1 case-finding tool might be reasonable to assist with diagnosis (positive likelihood ratio of 10.3). Meta-analysis demonstrated that retention in treatment improves when buprenorphine or methadone are used (64% to 73% vs 22% to 39% for control), when OUD is treated in primary care (86% vs 67% in specialty care, risk ratio [RR] of 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47), and when counseling is added to pharmacotherapy (74% vs 62% for controls, RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36). Retention was also improved with naltrexone (33% vs 25% for controls, RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64) and reduced with medication-related contingency management (eg, loss of take-home doses as a punitive measure; 68% vs 77% for no contingency, RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that patients with OUD should be managed in the primary care setting. Diagnostic criteria for OUD remain elusive, with 1 reasonable case-finding tool. Methadone and buprenorphine improve treatment retention, while medication-related contingency methods could worsen retention. Counseling is beneficial when added to pharmacotherapy.

What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the most commonly presenting conditions in primary care globally, and to compare common reasons for visits (RFVs) as reported by clinicians and patients, as well as among countries of different economic classifications. DATA SOURCES: Twelve scientific databases were searched up to January 2016, and a dual independent review was performed to select primary care studies. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they contained 20 000 visits or more (or equivalent volume by patient-clinician interactions) and listed 10 or more RFVs. Dual independent data extraction of study characteristics and RFV rankings was performed. Data analysis was descriptive, with pooled rankings of RFVs across studies. SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria (median 250 000 patients or 83 161 visits). Data were from 12 countries across 5 continents. The 10 most common clinician-reported RFVs were upper respiratory tract infection, hypertension, routine health maintenance, arthritis, diabetes, depression or anxiety, pneumonia, acute otitis media, back pain, and dermatitis. The 10 most common patient-reported RFVs were symptomatic conditions including cough, back pain, abdominal symptoms, pharyngitis, dermatitis, fever, headache, leg symptoms, unspecified respiratory concerns, and fatigue. Globally, upper respiratory tract infection and hypertension were the most common clinician-reported RFVs. In developed countries the next most common RFVs were depression or anxiety and back pain, and in developing countries they were pneumonia and tuberculosis. There was a paucity of available data, particularly from developing countries. CONCLUSION: There are differences between clinician-reported and patient-reported RFVs to primary care, as well as between developed and developing countries. The results of our review are useful for the development of primary care guidelines, the allocation of resources, and the design of training programs and curricula.

Systematic review of systematic reviews for medical cannabinoids: Pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and harms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of medical cannabinoids on pain, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting, and to identify adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and the references of included studies were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews with 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on medical cannabinoids for pain, spasticity, or nausea and vomiting were included. For adverse events, any meta-analysis for the conditions listed or of adverse events of cannabinoids was included. SYNTHESIS: From 1085 articles, 31 relevant systematic reviews were identified including 23 for pain, 5 for spasticity, 6 for nausea and vomiting, and 12 for adverse events. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs found more patients taking cannabinoids attained at least a 30% pain reduction: risk ratio (RR) of 1.37 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.64), number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Sensitivity analysis found study size and duration affected findings (subgroup differences, P ≤ .03), with larger and longer RCTs finding no benefit. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs found a positive global impression of change in spasticity (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.95, NNT = 7). Other results were not consistently statistically significant, but when positive, a 30% or more improvement in spasticity had an NNT of 10. Meta-analysis of 7 RCTs for control of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy found an RR of 3.60 (95% CI 2.55 to 5.09) with an NNT of 3. Adverse effects caused more patients to stop treatment (number needed to harm [NNH] of 8 to 22). Individual adverse events were very common, including dizziness (NNH = 5), sedation (NNH = 5), confusion (NNH = 15), and dissociation (NNH = 20). "Feeling high" was reported in 35% to 70% of users. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) evaluation reduced evidence ratings of benefit to low or very low. CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that cannabinoids improve nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. They might improve spasticity (primarily in multiple sclerosis). There is some uncertainty about whether cannabinoids improve pain, but if they do, it is neuropathic pain and the benefit is likely small. Adverse effects are very common, meaning benefits would need to be considerable to warrant trials of therapy.

Are potentially clinically meaningful benefits misinterpreted in cardiovascular randomized trials? A systematic examination of statistical significance, clinical significance, and authors' conclusions.

BACKGROUND: While journals and reporting guidelines recommend the presentation of confidence intervals, many authors adhere strictly to statistically significant testing. Our objective was to determine what proportions of not statistically significant (NSS) cardiovascular trials include potentially clinically meaningful effects in primary outcomes and if these are associated with authors' conclusions. METHODS: Cardiovascular studies published in six high-impact journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 were identified via PubMed. Two independent reviewers selected trials with major adverse cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death) as primary outcomes and extracted data on trial characteristics, quality, and primary outcome. Potentially clinically meaningful effects were defined broadly as a relative risk point estimate ≤0.94 (based on the effects of ezetimibe) and/or a lower confidence interval ≤0.75 (based on the effects of statins). RESULTS: We identified 127 randomized trial comparisons from 3200 articles. The primary outcomes were statistically significant (SS) favoring treatment in 21% (27/127), NSS in 72% (92/127), and SS favoring control in 6% (8/127). In 61% of NSS trials (56/92), the point estimate and/or lower confidence interval included potentially meaningful effects. Both point estimate and confidence interval included potentially meaningful effects in 67% of trials (12/18) in which authors' concluded that treatment was superior, in 28% (16/58) with a neutral conclusion, and in 6% (1/16) in which authors' concluded that control was superior. In a sensitivity analysis, 26% of NSS trials would include potential meaningful effects with relative risk thresholds of point estimate ≤0.85 and/or a lower confidence interval ≤0.65. CONCLUSIONS: Point estimates and/or confidence intervals included potentially clinically meaningful effects in up to 61% of NSS cardiovascular trials. Authors' conclusions often reflect potentially meaningful results of NSS cardiovascular trials. Given the frequency of potentially clinical meaningful effects in NSS trials, authors should be encouraged to continue to look beyond significance testing to a broader interpretation of trial results.