Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

BACKGROUND: Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: One of the greatest challenges in healthcare is how to best translate research evidence into clinical practice, which includes how to change health-care professionals' behaviours. A commonly held view is that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions. The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions in comparison to single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals' behaviour in clinical settings. METHODS: The Rx for Change database, which consists of quality-appraised systematic reviews of interventions to change health-care professional behaviour, was used to identify systematic reviews for the overview. Dual, independent screening and data extraction was conducted. Included reviews used three different approaches (of varying methodological robustness) to evaluate the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions: (1) effect size/dose-response statistical analyses, (2) direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions and (3) indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions. RESULTS: Twenty-five reviews were included in the overview. Three reviews provided effect size/dose-response statistical analyses of the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions; no statistical evidence of a relationship between the number of intervention components and the effect size was found. Eight reviews reported direct (non-statistical) comparisons of multifaceted to single-component interventions; four of these reviews found multifaceted interventions to be generally effective compared to single interventions, while the remaining four reviews found that multifaceted interventions had either mixed effects or were generally ineffective compared to single interventions. Twenty-three reviews indirectly compared the effectiveness of multifaceted to single interventions; nine of which also reported either a statistical (dose-response) analysis (N = 2) or a non-statistical direct comparison (N = 7). The majority (N = 15) of reviews reporting indirect comparisons of multifaceted to single interventions showed similar effectiveness for multifaceted and single interventions when compared to controls. Of the remaining eight reviews, six found single interventions to be generally effective while multifaceted had mixed effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This overview of systematic reviews offers no compelling evidence that multifaceted interventions are more effective than single-component interventions.

Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews - what does the evidence tell us?

BACKGROUND: Ensuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention intended to improve intermediate patient outcomes and process of care measures for patients with any type of diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened search results, appraised each systematic review using AMSTAR and extracted data from high quality reviews (AMSTAR score ≥ 5). Within reviews, we used vote counting by direction of effect to report the number of studies favouring an intervention for each outcome. We produced summaries of results for each intervention category. RESULTS: We identified 125 reviews of varying methodological quality and summarised key findings from 50 high quality reviews. We categorised reviews by quality improvement intervention. Eight reviews were broad based (involving a variety of strategies). Other reviews considered: patient education and support (n = 21), telemedicine (n = 10), provider role changes (n = 7), and organisational changes (n = 4). Reviews reported intermediate patient outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control) (n = 49) and process of care outcomes (n = 9). There was evidence of considerable overlap of included studies between reviews. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence from high quality systematic reviews that patient education and support, provider role changes, and telemedicine are associated with improvements in glycaemic and vascular risk factor control in patients. There is less evidence about the impact of quality improvement interventions on other key process measures such as screening patients for diabetic complications. This paper provides decision makers with a comprehensive overview of evidence from high quality systematic reviews about the effects of quality improvement interventions on improving diabetes care.

The Rx for Change database: a first-in-class tool for optimal prescribing and medicines use.

BACKGROUND: Globally, suboptimal prescribing practices and medication errors are common. Guidance to health professionals and consumers alone is not sufficient to optimise behaviours, therefore strategies to promote evidence-based decision making and practice, such as decision support tools or reminders, are important. The literature in this area is growing, but is of variable quality and dispersed across sources, which makes it difficult to identify, access, and assess. To overcome these problems, by synthesizing and evaluating the data from systematic reviews, we have developed Rx for Change to provide a comprehensive, online database of the evidence for strategies to improve drug prescribing and use. METHODS: We use reliable and valid methods to search and screen the literature, and to appraise and analyse the evidence from relevant systematic reviews. We then present the findings in an online format which allows users to easily access pertinent information related to prescribing and medicines use. The database is a result of the collaboration between the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and two Cochrane review groups. RESULTS: To capture the body of evidence on interventions to improve prescribing and medicines use, we conduct comprehensive and regular searches in multiple databases, and hand-searches of relevant journals. We screen articles to identify relevant systematic reviews, and include them if they are of moderate or high methodological quality. Two researchers screen, assess quality, and extract data on demographic details, intervention characteristics, and outcome data. We report the results of our analysis of each systematic review using a standardised quantitative and qualitative format. Rx for Change currently contains over 200 summarised reviews, structured in a multi-level format. The reviews included in the database are diverse, covering various settings, conditions, or diseases and targeting a range of professional and consumer behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Rx for Change is a novel database that synthesizes current research evidence about the effects of interventions to improve drug prescribing practices and medicines use.

Supporting safe driving with arthritis: developing a driving toolkit for clinical practice and consumer use.

We conducted a series of focus groups to explore the information needs of clinicians and consumers related to arthritis and driving. An open coding analysis identified common themes across both consumer and clinician-based focus groups that underscored the importance of addressing driving-related concerns and the challenges associated with assessing safety. The results revealed that although driving is critical for maintaining independence and community mobility, drivers with arthritis experience several problems that can affect safe operation of a motor vehicle. Findings from this study are part of a broader research initiative that will inform the development of the Arthritis and Driving toolkit. This toolkit outlines strategies to support safe mobility for people with arthritis and will be an important resource in the coming years given the aging population.