Benefits and Harms of Prescription Drugs and Supplements for Treatment of Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Effects of drug treatment of clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on the effects of prescription drugs and supplements for CATD treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases (inception to November 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov (to November 2019), and systematic review bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials of prescription drug and supplement treatment in older adults with CATD that report cognition, function, global measures, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), or harms. Minimum treatment was 24 weeks (≥2 weeks for selected BPSD). DATA EXTRACTION: Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; another verified extraction accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-five studies reporting non-BPSD outcomes (most ≤26 weeks) and 12 reporting BPSD (most ≤12 weeks) were analyzed. Across CATD severity, mostly low-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, cholinesterase inhibitors produced small average improvements in cognition (median standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.30 [range, 0.24 to 0.52]), no difference to small improvement in function (median SMD, 0.19 [range, -0.10 to 0.22]), no difference in the likelihood of at least moderate improvement in global clinical impression (median absolute risk difference, 4% [range, 2% to 4%]), and increased withdrawals due to adverse events. In adults with moderate to severe CATD receiving cholinesterase inhibitors, low- to insufficient-strength evidence suggested that, compared with placebo, add-on memantine inconsistently improved cognition and improved global clinical impression but not function. Evidence was mostly insufficient about prescription drugs for BPSD and about supplements for all outcomes. LIMITATION: Most drugs had few trials without high ROB, especially for supplements, active drug comparisons, BPSD, and longer trials. CONCLUSION: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine slightly reduced short-term cognitive decline, and cholinesterase inhibitors slightly reduced reported functional decline, but differences versus placebo were of uncertain clinical importance. Evidence was mostly insufficient on drug treatment of BPSD and on supplements for all outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).

Accuracy of Biomarker Testing for Neuropathologically Defined Alzheimer Disease in Older Adults With Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Biomarker accuracy for Alzheimer disease (AD) is uncertain. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on biomarker accuracy for classifying AD in older adults with dementia. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases (searched from January 2012 to November 2019 for brain imaging and cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] tests and from inception to November 2019 for blood tests), ClinicalTrials.gov (to November 2019), and systematic review bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies evaluating the accuracy of brain imaging, CSF testing, or blood tests for distinguishing neuropathologically defined AD from non-AD among older adults with dementia. Studies with low or medium risk of bias were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers rated risk of bias. One extracted data; the other verified accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen brain imaging studies and 9 CSF studies met analysis criteria. Median sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 0.91 and 0.92 for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), 0.89 and 0.74 for 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET, 0.64 and 0.83 for single-photon emission computed tomography, and 0.91 and 0.89 for medial temporal lobe atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Individual CSF biomarkers and ratios had moderate sensitivity (range, 0.62 to 0.83) and specificity (range, 0.53 to 0.69); in the few direct comparisons, ß-amyloid 42 (Aß42)/phosphorylated tau (p-tau) ratio, total tau (t-tau)/Aß42 ratio, and p-tau appeared more accurate than Aß42 and t-tau alone. Single studies suggested that amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and CSF test combinations may add accuracy to clinical evaluation. LIMITATIONS: Studies were small, biomarker cut points and neuropathologic AD were inconsistently defined, and methods with uncertain applicability to typical clinical settings were used. Few studies directly compared biomarkers, assessed test combinations, evaluated whether biomarkers improved classification accuracy when added to clinical evaluation, or reported harms. CONCLUSION: In methodologically heterogeneous studies of uncertain applicability to typical clinical settings, amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and MRI were highly sensitive for neuropathologic AD. Amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and CSF test combinations may add accuracy to clinical evaluation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).

Brief Cognitive Tests for Distinguishing Clinical Alzheimer-Type Dementia From Mild Cognitive Impairment or Normal Cognition in Older Adults With Suspected Cognitive Impairment.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for identifying clinical Alzheimer-type dementia (CATD) are uncertain. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on accuracy and harms of brief cognitive tests for CATD in older adults with suspected cognitive impairment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases (from inception to November 2019) and systematic review bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, controlled observational studies in older adults that evaluated the accuracy of brief cognitive tests (standalone tests; memory, executive function, and language tests; and brief multidomain batteries) for distinguishing CATD from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or normal cognition as defined by established diagnostic criteria. Studies with low or medium risk of bias (ROB) were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers rated ROB. One reviewer extracted data; the other verified extraction accuracy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-seven studies met analysis criteria. Many brief, single cognitive tests were highly sensitive and specific for distinguishing CATD from normal cognition. These included standalone tests (clock-drawing test, median sensitivity 0.79 and specificity 0.88 [8 studies]; Mini-Mental State Examination, 0.88 and 0.94 [7 studies]; Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 0.94 and 0.94 [2 studies]; and Brief Alzheimer Screen, 0.92 and 0.97 [1 study]), memory tests (list delayed recall, 0.89 and 0.94 [5 studies]), and language tests (category fluency, 0.92 and 0.89 [9 studies]). Accuracy was lower in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition and distinguishing CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms. LIMITATIONS: Studies were small. Few test metrics were evaluated by multiple studies. Few studies directly compared different tests, scores, cut points, or test combinations. CONCLUSION: Many brief, single cognitive tests accurately distinguish CATD from normal cognition in older adults but are less accurate in distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition or CATD from MCI. No studies reported on testing harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897).

Pharmacologic Treatment of Insomnia Disorder: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic interventions are often prescribed for insomnia disorder. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits, harms, and comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments for adults with insomnia disorder. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic databases (2004-September 2015), reference lists, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents. STUDY SELECTION: 35 randomized, controlled trials of at least 4 weeks' duration that evaluated pharmacotherapies available in the United States and that reported global or sleep outcomes; 11 long-term observational studies that reported harm information; FDA review data for nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics and orexin receptor antagonists; and product labels for all agents. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction by single investigator confirmed by a second reviewer; dual-investigator assessment of risk of bias; consensus determination of strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eszopiclone, zolpidem, and suvorexant improved short-term global and sleep outcomes compared with placebo, although absolute effect sizes were small (low- to moderate-strength evidence). Evidence for benzodiazepine hypnotics, melatonin agonists, and antidepressants, and for most pharmacologic interventions in older adults, was insufficient or low strength. Evidence was also insufficient to compare efficacy within or across pharmacotherapy classes or versus behavioral therapy. Harms evidence reported in trials was judged insufficient or low strength; observational studies suggested that use of hypnotics for insomnia was associated with increased risk for dementia, fractures, and major injury. The FDA documents reported that most pharmacotherapies had risks for cognitive and behavioral changes, including driving impairment, and other adverse effects, and they advised dose reduction in women and in older adults. LIMITATIONS: Most trials were small and short term and enrolled individuals meeting stringent criteria. Minimum important differences in outcomes were often not established or reported. Data were scant for many treatments. CONCLUSION: Eszopiclone, zolpidem, and suvorexant may improve short-term global and sleep outcomes for adults with insomnia disorder, but the comparative effectiveness and long-term efficacy of pharmacotherapies for insomnia are not known. Pharmacotherapies for insomnia may cause cognitive and behavioral changes and may be associated with infrequent but serious harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ( PROSPERO: CRD42014009908).

Psychological and Behavioral Interventions for Managing Insomnia Disorder: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Psychological and behavioral interventions are frequently used for insomnia disorder. PURPOSE: To assess benefits and harms of psychological and behavioral interventions for insomnia disorder in adults. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO through September 2015, supplemented with hand-searching. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of psychological or behavioral interventions that were published in English and enrolled adults with insomnia disorder lasting 4 or more weeks. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction by single investigator confirmed by a second reviewer; dual investigator assessment of risk of bias; consensus determination of strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty trials with low to moderate risk of bias compared psychological and behavioral interventions with inactive controls or other psychological and behavioral interventions. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) improved posttreatment global and most sleep outcomes, often compared with information or waitlist controls (moderate-strength evidence). Use of CBT-I improved several sleep outcomes in older adults (low- to moderate-strength evidence). Multicomponent behavioral therapy improved several sleep outcomes in older adults (low- to moderate-strength evidence). Stimulus control improved 1 or 2 sleep outcomes (low-strength evidence). Evidence for other comparisons and for harms was insufficient to permit conclusions. LIMITATIONS: A wide variety of comparisons limited the ability to pool data. Trials did not always report global outcomes and infrequently conducted remitter or responder analysis. Comparisons were often information or waitlist groups, and publication bias was possible. CONCLUSION: Use of CBT-I improves most outcomes compared with inactive controls. Multicomponent behavioral therapy and stimulus control may improve some sleep outcomes. Evidence on other outcomes, comparisons, and long-term efficacy were limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ( PROSPERO: CRD42014009908).

Intermediate- and Long-Term Cognitive Outcomes After Cardiovascular Procedures in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Risks for intermediate- and long-term cognitive impairment after cardiovascular procedures in older adults are poorly understood. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence about cognitive outcomes in adults aged 65 years or older at least 3 months after coronary or carotid revascularization, cardiac valve procedures, or ablation for atrial fibrillation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from 1990 to January 2015; ClinicalTrials.gov; and bibliographies of reviews and eligible studies. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and prospective cohort studies. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy, and 2 independently rated quality and strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: 17 trials and 4 cohort studies were included; 80% of patients were men, and mean age was 68 years. Cognitive function did not differ after the procedure between on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 6; low SOE), hypothermic and normothermic CABG (n = 3; moderate to low SOE), or CABG and medical management (n = 1; insufficient SOE). One trial reported lower risk for incident cognitive impairment with minimal versus conventional extracorporeal CABG (risk ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.73]; low SOE). Two trials found no difference between surgical carotid revascularization and carotid stenting or angioplasty (low and insufficient SOE, respectively). One cohort study reported increased cognitive decline after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement but had large selection and outcome measurement biases (insufficient SOE). LIMITATIONS: Mostly low to insufficient SOE; no pertinent data for ablation; limited generalizability to the most elderly patients, women, and persons with substantial baseline cognitive impairment; and possible selective reporting and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Intermediate- and long-term cognitive impairment in older adults attributable to the studied cardiovascular procedures may be uncommon. Nevertheless, clinicians counseling patients before these procedures should discuss the uncertainty in their risk for adverse cognitive outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Medical management to prevent recurrent nephrolithiasis in adults: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Optimum management to prevent recurrent kidney stones is uncertain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions to prevent recurrent kidney stones. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and other databases through September 2012 and reference lists of systematic reviews and randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). STUDY SELECTION: 28 English-language RCTs that studied treatments to prevent recurrent kidney stones and reported stone outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy, and 2 independently rated quality and graded strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: In patients with 1 past calcium stone, low-strength evidence showed that increased fluid intake halved recurrent composite stone risk compared with no treatment (relative risk [RR], 0.45 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.84]). Low-strength evidence showed that reducing soft-drink consumption decreased recurrent symptomatic stone risk (RR, 0.83 [CI, 0.71 to 0.98]). In patients with multiple past calcium stones, most of whom were receiving increased fluid intake, moderate-strength evidence showed that thiazides (RR, 0.52 [CI, 0.39 to 0.69]), citrates (RR, 0.25 [CI, 0.14 to 0.44]), and allopurinol (RR, 0.59 [CI, 0.42 to 0.84]) each further reduced composite stone recurrence risk compared with placebo or control, although the benefit from allopurinol seemed limited to patients with baseline hyperuricemia or hyperuricosuria. Other baseline biochemistry measures did not allow prediction of treatment efficacy. Low-strength evidence showed that neither citrate nor allopurinol combined with thiazide was superior to thiazide alone. There were few withdrawals among patients with increased fluid intake, many among those with other dietary interventions and more among those who received thiazide and citrate than among control patients. Reporting of adverse events was poor. LIMITATIONS: Most trial participants had idiopathic calcium stones. Nearly all studies reported a composite (including asymptomatic) stone recurrence outcome. CONCLUSION: In patients with 1 past calcium stone, increased fluid intake reduced recurrence risk. In patients with multiple past calcium stones, addition of thiazide, citrate, or allopurinol further reduced risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Pharmacologic therapy for primary restless legs syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a neurological disorder characterized by unpleasant sensations in the legs and a distressing, irresistible urge to move them. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate efficacy, safety, and comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments for primary RLS. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, reporting efficacy outcomes and harms of pharmacologic treatments for primary RLS of at least 4 weeks' duration. MEDLINE and other databases were searched through June 2012. Reviewers extracted outcomes and adverse events and rated the strength of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 29 eligible RCTs. We found high-strength evidence that the proportion of patients who had a clinically important response (International Restless Legs Syndrome [IRLS] responders), defined as a 50% or greater reduction from baseline in mean IRLS symptom scale scores, was greater with dopamine agonist therapy compared with placebo (61% vs 41%) (risk ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.38-1.86]; 7 trials). Dopamine agonists also improved patient-reported sleep scale scores and quality-of-life measures. High-strength evidence demonstrated that calcium channel alpha-2-delta ligands increased the proportion of IRLS responders compared with placebo (61% vs 37%) (risk ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.33-2.09]; 3 trials). Adverse events associated with dopamine agonists included nausea, vomiting, and somnolence. Alpha-2-delta ligands adverse events included somnolence and unsteadiness or dizziness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: On the basis of short-term RCTs that enrolled highly selected populations with long-term high-moderate to very severe symptoms, dopamine agonists and calcium channel alpha-2-delta ligands reduced RLS symptoms and improved sleep outcomes and disease-specific quality of life. Adverse effects and treatment withdrawals due to adverse effects were common.

Participation after multidisciplinary rehabilitation for moderate to severe traumatic brain injury in adults: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs for moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in improving participation-related outcomes in adults. This article presents results of select key questions from a recent Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research comparative effectiveness review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO; hand searches of previous relevant reviews. STUDY SELECTION: We included prospective controlled studies that evaluated the effectiveness or comparative effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs delivered to adults with moderate to severe TBI on their participation in life and community. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated strength of evidence. Participation was selected as our primary outcome and included measures of productivity (eg, return to employment or military service) and select scales measuring community integration. Only data from studies with a low or moderate risk of bias were synthesized. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria; of these, 8 were of low or moderate risk of bias (4 randomized controlled trials of 680 patients and 4 cohort studies of 190 patients, sample size 36-366). Heterogeneous populations, interventions, and outcomes precluded pooled analysis. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about effectiveness. Evidence on comparative effectiveness often demonstrated that improvements were not different between groups; however, this evidence was low strength and may have limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Our review used a rigorous systematic review methodology and focused on participation after multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs for impairments from moderate to severe TBI. The available evidence did not demonstrate the superiority of one approach over another. This conclusion is consistent with previous reviews that examined other patient-centered outcomes. While these findings will have little clinical impact, they do point out the limited evidence available to assess effectiveness and comparative effectiveness while highlighting important issues to consider in future comparative effectiveness research on this topic.