Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular and surgical revascularization for patients with chronic lower extremity venous insufficiency and varicose veins.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lower extremity venous disease (LECVD) is twice as prevalent as coronary heart disease, and invasive therapies to treat LECVD accounted for an estimated $290 million in Medicare expenditures in 2015. Despite increasing use of these invasive therapies, their comparative effectiveness is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for patients (symptomatic and asymptomatic) with lower extremity varicosities and/or lower extremity chronic venous insufficiency/incompetence/reflux. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to July 2016. We included comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >20 patients and observational studies with >500 patients. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term outcomes of placebo, mechanical compression therapy, and invasive therapies (surgical and endovascular) were included. Quality ratings and evidence grading was performed. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. RESULTS: We identified a total of 57 studies representing 105,878 enrolled patients, including 53 RCTs comprised of 10,034 patients. Among the RCTs, 16 were good quality, 28 were fair quality, and 9 were poor quality. Allocation concealment, double blinding, and reporting bias were inadequately addressed in 25 of 53 (47%), 46 of 53 (87%), and 15 of 53 (28.3%), respectively. Heterogeneity in therapies, populations, and/or outcomes prohibited meta-analysis of comparisons between different endovascular therapies and between endovascular intervention and placebo/compression. Meta-analysis evaluating venous stripping plus ligation (high ligation/stripping) compared with radiofrequency ablation revealed no difference in short-term bleeding (odds ratio [OR]=0.30, 95% CI -0.16 to 5.38, P=.43) or reflux recurrence at 1-2 years (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.37-1.55, P=.44). Meta-analysis evaluating high ligation/stripping versus endovascular laser ablation revealed no difference in long-term symptom score (OR 0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.23, P=.84) or quality of life at 2 years (OR 0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.25, P=.50). CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of high-quality comparative effectiveness and safety data in LECVD is concerning given the overall rise in endovascular procedures. More high-quality studies are needed to determine comparative effectiveness and guide policy and practice.

Nonpharmacologic Treatments for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Nonpharmacologic treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) encompass a range of care approaches from structured behavioral interventions to complementary medicines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacologic treatments for ADHD among individuals 17 years of age and younger. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 1, 2009 through November 7, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that compared any ADHD nonpharmacologic treatment strategy with placebo, pharmacologic, or another nonpharmacologic treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, patient characteristics, intervention approaches, follow-up times, and outcomes were abstracted. For comparisons with at least 3 similar studies, random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates. RESULTS: We identified 54 studies of nonpharmacologic treatments, including neurofeedback, cognitive training, cognitive behavioral therapy, child or parent training, dietary omega fatty acid supplementation, and herbal and/or dietary approaches. No new guidance was identified regarding the comparative effectiveness of nonpharmacologic treatments. Pooled results for omega fatty acids found no significant effects for parent rating of ADHD total symptoms (n = 411; standardized mean difference -0.32; 95% confidence interval -0.80 to 0.15; I2 = 52.4%; P = .10) or teacher-rated total ADHD symptoms (n = 287; standardized mean difference -0.08; 95% confidence interval -0.47 to 0.32; I2 = 0.0%; P = .56). LIMITATIONS: Studies often did not reflect the primary care setting and had short follow-up periods, small sample sizes, variations in outcomes, and inconsistent reporting of comparative statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Despite wide use, there are significant gaps in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of ADHD nonpharmacologic treatments.

Oral contraceptive use for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the overall balance of harms and benefits from the potential use of oral contraceptives (OCs) for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published from January 1990 to June 2012 that evaluated the potential benefits (reduction in ovarian, colorectal, and endometrial cancers) and harms (increase in breast and cervical cancer, and vascular complications) of OC use. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion; the investigators abstracted data, and they performed quality ratings, applicability ratings, and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. A simulation model was used to estimate the effects of OC use on the overall balance of benefits and harms. RESULTS: We reviewed 55 studies relevant to ovarian cancer outcomes, 66 relevant to other cancers, and 50 relevant to vascular events. Ovarian cancer incidence was significantly reduced in OC users (OR [odds ratio], 0.73; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.66 to 0.81), with greater reductions seen with longer duration of use. Breast cancer incidence was slightly but significantly increased in OC users (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.17), with a significant reduction in risk as time since last use increased. The risk of cervical cancer was significantly increased in women with persistent human papillomavirus infection who used OCs, but heterogeneity prevented a formal meta-analysis. Incidences of both colorectal cancer (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.76) were significantly reduced by OC use. The risk of vascular events was increased in current OC users compared with nonusers, although the increase in myocardial infarction was not statistically significant. The overall strength of evidence for ovarian cancer prevention was moderate to low, primarily because of the lack of randomized trials and inconsistent reporting of important characteristics of use, such as duration. The simulation model predicted that the combined increase in risk of breast and cervical cancers and vascular events was likely to be equivalent to or greater than the decreased risk in ovarian cancer, although the harm/benefit ratio was much more favorable when protection against endometrial and colorectal cancers was added, resulting in net gains in life expectancy of approximately 1 month. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of OCs solely for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer. Although the net effects of the current patterns of OC use likely result in increased life expectancy when other noncontraceptive benefits are included, the harm/benefit ratio for ovarian cancer prevention alone is uncertain, particularly when the potential quality-of-life impact of breast cancer and vascular events are considered.