Interventions for intermittent exotropia.

BACKGROUND: The clinical management of intermittent exotropia (X(T)) has been discussed extensively in the literature, yet there remains a lack of clarity regarding indications for intervention, the most effective form of treatment, and whether there is an optimal time in the evolution of the disease at which any given treatment should be carried out. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to analyze the effects of various surgical and non-surgical treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with intermittent exotropia, and to report intervention criteria and determine whether the treatment effect varies by age and subtype of X(T). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 1), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP. The date of the search was 20 January 2021. We performed manual searches of the British Orthoptic Journal up to 2002, and the proceedings of the European Strabismological Association (ESA), International Strabismological Association (ISA), and American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus meeting (AAPOS) up to 2001. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of any surgical or non-surgical treatment for intermittent exotropia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs, four of which took place in the United States, and the remaining two in Asia (Turkey, India). A total of 890 participants with basic or distance X(T) were included, most of whom were children aged 12 months to 10 years. Three of these six studies were from the 2013 version of this review. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of performance bias as masking of participants and personnel administering treatment was not possible. Two RCTs compared bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral lateral rectus recession with medial rectus resection, but only one RCT (n = 197) reported on the primary outcomes of this review. Bilateral lateral rectus recession likely results in little difference in motor alignment at near (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.69 to 4.69) and distance (MD 2.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 5.22) fixation as measured in pupillary distance using PACT (moderate-certainty evidence). Bilateral lateral rectus recession may result in little to no difference in stereoacuity at near fixation (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.71), adverse events (RR 7.36, 95% CI 0.39 to 140.65), or quality of life measures (low-certainty evidence). We conducted a meta-analysis of two RCTs comparing patching (n = 249) with active observation (n = 252), but were unable to conduct further meta-analyses due to the clinical and methodological heterogeneity in the remaining trials. We found evidence that patching was clinically more effective than active observation in improving motor alignment at near (mean difference (MD) -2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.02 to -0.44) and distance (MD -2.00, 95% CI -3.40 to -0.61) fixation as measured by prism and alternate cover test (PACT) at six months (high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that patching results in little to no difference in stereoacuity at near fixation (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07) (low-certainty evidence). Stereoacuity at distance, motor fusion test, and quality of life measures were not reported. Adverse events were also not reported, but study authors explained that they were not anticipated due to the non-surgical nature of patching. One RCT (n = 38) compared prism adaptation test with eye muscle surgery versus eye muscle surgery alone. No review outcomes were reported. One RCT (n = 60) compared lateral rectus recession and medial rectus plication versus lateral rectus recession and medial rectus resection. Lateral rectus recession and medial rectus plication may not improve motor alignment at distance (MD 0.66, 95% CI -1.06 to 2.38) (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for the effect of lateral rectus recession and medial rectus plication on motor fusion test performance is very uncertain (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.74) (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patching confers a clinical benefit in children aged 12 months to 10 years of age with basic- or distance-type X(T) compared with active observation. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether interventions such as bilateral lateral rectus recession versus unilateral lateral rectus recession with medial rectus resection; lateral rectus recession and medial rectus plication versus lateral rectus recession and medial rectus resection; and prism adaptation test prior to eye muscle surgery versus eye muscle surgery alone may confer any benefit.

Evaluation of Patient and Family Engagement Strategies to Improve Medication Safety.

BACKGROUND: Patient and family engagement (PFE) is critical for patient safety. We systematically reviewed types of PFE strategies implemented and their impact on medication safety. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and websites to August 2016. Two investigators independently reviewed all abstracts and articles, and articles were additionally reviewed by two senior investigators for selection. One investigator abstracted data and two investigators reviewed the data for accuracy. Study quality was determined by consensus. Investigators developed a framework for defining the level of patient engagement: informing patients about medications (Level 1), informing about engagement with health care providers (Level 2), empowering patients with communication tools and skills (Level 3), partnering with patients in their care (Level 4), and integrating patients as full care team members (Level 5). RESULTS: We included 19 studies that mostly targeted older adults taking multiple medications. The median level of engagement was 2, ranging from 2-4. We identified no level 5 studies. Key themes for patient engagement strategies impacting medication safety were patient education and medication reconciliation, with a subtheme of patient portals. Most studies (84%) reported implementation outcomes. The most commonly reported medication safety outcomes were medication errors, including near misses and discrepancies (47%), and medication safety knowledge (37%). Most studies (63%) were of medium to low quality, and risk of bias was generally moderate. Among the 11 studies with control groups, 55% (n = 6) reported statistically significant improvement on at least one medication safety outcome. Further synthesis of medication safety measures was limited due to intervention and outcome heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Key strategies for engaging patients in medication safety are education and medication reconciliation. Patient engagement levels were generally low, as defined by a novel framework for determining levels of patient engagement. As more patient engagement studies are conducted, this framework should be evaluated for associations with patient outcomes.

Benefits and Harms of Osteoporosis Medications in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complications of chronic kidney disease (CKD) include weak bones and increased fracture risk. PURPOSE: To review the benefits and harms of osteoporosis medications (bisphosphonates, teriparatide, raloxifene, and denosumab) compared with placebo, usual care, or active control in terms of bone mineral density (BMD), fractures, and safety in patients with CKD. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 2006 through December 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for English-language, randomized, controlled trials that had at least 6 months of follow-up; evaluated osteoporosis medications among patients with CKD; and reported on BMD, fractures, or safety (mortality and adverse events). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers serially abstracted data and independently assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 13 trials (n = 9850) that included kidney transplant recipients (6 trials), patients who had stage 3 to 5 CKD or were receiving dialysis (3 trials), or postmenopausal women with CKD (4 trials). Evidence showed that bisphosphonates may slow loss of BMD among transplant recipients (moderate SOE), but their effects on fractures and safety in transplant recipients and others with CKD are unclear. Raloxifene may prevent vertebral fractures but may not improve BMD (low SOE). Effects of teriparatide and denosumab on BMD and fractures are unclear (very low SOE), and these medications may increase risk for some safety outcomes. LIMITATION: Unclear rigor of evidence, possible reporting biases, and scant evidence among patients with stage 3 to 5 CKD. CONCLUSION: Effects of osteoporosis medications on BMD, fracture risk, and safety among patients with CKD are not clearly established. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.

Atomoxetine treatment for children and adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): a comprehensive meta-analysis of outcomes on parent-rated core symptomatology.

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) impacts a significant number of children and adolescents and often leads to deleterious functional impairment. Psychostimulant medication has historically been the first line of pharmacological intervention, though recent years have seen greater attention paid to non-stimulant alternatives. The objective of the present study was to conduct the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date evaluating the efficacy of atomoxetine in reducing core symptomatology of ADHD according to parent report. Selection criteria were applied, and studies were located by searching electronic databases, review of reference sections, and contact with expert researchers; article searching began on 10/01/2013, and the final search was conducted on 09/01/2014. A total of 42 studies met inclusion criteria-33 with control groups and 9 without-for a total sample of 8398 individuals. For those receiving atomoxetine, the summary pre-post (e.g., standardized mean gain) effect size estimate was 1.37 (95% CI [1.24, 1.51], p < .001); atomoxetine was found to statistically significantly outperform control conditions overall (Z = 4.07, p < .001), though results differed by the type of control group; for instance, when comparing atomoxetine to alternative medications as controls, significant differences were no longer present. The non-stimulant atomoxetine led to significant improvement in core ADHD symptomatology and should be considered as a viable pharmacological treatment option for ADHD.