Management of Acute Diverticulitis
Public Report
Complete
Statistics: 79 Studies,
4 Key Questions,
2 Extraction Forms,
Date Created: Sep 20, 2019 06:07PM
Description: Purpose of the Review The American College of Physicians (ACP) nominated the topic of management of acute diverticulitis to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for systematic review. 45, 46 The ACP develops guidelines based on the needs of its members and the internal medicine community.47 The scope of the current systematic review was developed to support the ACP in its effort to create a new clinical practice guideline that will address diagnosis and staging of acute diverticulitis, nonsurgical treatment of acute diverticulitis, colorectal cancer screening in people with a history of diverticulitis, and interventions to prevent recurrence of acute diverticulitis. Specifically, (1) the systematic review will summarize existing systematic reviews on the test accuracy of CT imaging for diagnosis and staging of acute diverticulitis and conduct a de novo review of harms related to false positive, false negative, and incidental findings on CT imaging for suspected acute diverticulitis; (2) it will address effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of hospitalization for acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, antibiotics use for acute complicated or uncomplicated diverticulitis, and interventional radiology techniques for acute complicated diverticulitis; (3) it will review the benefits and harms of colonoscopy in people with a history of diverticulitis; and (4) it will evaluate pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrent diverticulitis. Of note, this review will not evaluate the need for, or the choice of, surgery for the patient with acute diverticulitis. The intended audience includes guideline developers, clinicians and other providers of care for patients with diverticulitis, healthcare policy makers, and patients.
|
Interventions for Drug Use – Supplemental Report: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [Entered Retrospectively]
Public Report
Complete
Statistics: 91 Studies,
6 Key Questions,
1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: May 12, 2020 09:42PM
Description: Background: A U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report found no consistent evidence that counseling interventions are effective at reducing drug use or improving other health outcomes in populations whose drug use was identified through primary care-based screening with questions about drug use or drug-related risks (i.e., “screen-detected populations”). Evidence from studies of persons seeking or referred for treatment for substance use or with clinical signs or symptoms of substance use (i.e., “treatment-seeking populations”) might also be useful for informing assessments regarding screening in primary care settings.
Purpose: This report updates a 2008 USPSTF report on screening for illicit drug use and supplements an updated USPSTF report on screening for any drug use, focusing on the benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions for persons whose drug use was identified when seeking substance use treatment, when presenting with signs or symptoms of drug use, when screened for drug use in primary care or other settings with questions about drug use or drug-related risks, or other means.
Data Sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to September 2018; surveillance for new literature was conducted through November 22, 2019.
Study Selection: We included trials of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapies for opioid use disorder (methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone) and trials of psychosocial interventions for persons engaging in opioid, stimulant, cannabis, and mixed drug or polysubstance use. We also included trials of preemptive prescribing of naloxone in primary care settings as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose. Trials compared included interventions against placebo, a minimal intervention, waitlist control, or usual care, and evaluated outcomes at >3 months for drug use or other risky behaviors; health, social, and legal consequences of drug use; or harms of treatment.
Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF.
Data Synthesis (Results): We included a total of 71 trials, with 19 trials of pharmacotherapies and 52 trials of psychosocial interventions. All trials of pharmacotherapies and 25 trials of psychosocial interventions were conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions commonly incorporated cognitive-behavioral or motivational interventions and ranged from brief interventions consisting of one or two sessions of no more than one hour to multiple treatment sessions over weeks or months. In most pharmacotherapy trials, drug use counseling was provided to all patients. No study evaluated benefits or harms of preemptive naloxone prescribed in primary care settings versus placebo or no naloxone as a rescue medication for opioid-related overdose.
In treatment-seeking populations with opioid use disorder, naltrexone (12 trials; relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.85; number needed to treat [NNT] 5.3) and opioid agonist therapy with methadone or buprenorphine (4 trials; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82; NNT 2.9) were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse compared with placebo or no pharmacotherapy. Naltrexone and methadone/buprenorphine therapy were also associated with increased likelihood of retention in substance use treatment (9 trials; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.49; NNT 6.7 and 7 trials; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.59; NNT 2.6; respectively). Evidence on harms of pharmacotherapies was limited, but indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events.
Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of abstinence from drug use versus control conditions at 3 to 4 months (15 trials, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.13; NNT 11) and at 6 to 12 months (14 trials; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; NNT 17), based on trials primarily conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Psychosocial interventions were also associated with a greater decrease versus control conditions in the number of drug use days (19 trials; mean difference -0.49 day in the last 7 days, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.13) and a small but statistically significant greater decrease in drug use severity (16 trials; standard mean difference -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.05) at 3- to 4-month followup. There was no difference between psychosocial interventions versus controls on drug use days or severity at longer (6 to 12 month) followup. Effects of psychosocial interventions were generally stronger in trials of treatment-seeking than screen-detected populations, trials that evaluated cannabis use than other types of drug use, and trials of more intensive than brief interventions. Few trials evaluated effects of psychosocial interventions for opioid or stimulant use, and estimates were imprecise.
Limitations: Limitations included restriction to English-language articles, statistical heterogeneity in pooled analyses, and little evidence on drug-related health, social, or legal outcomes; most trials had methodological limitations. Evidence was lacking on effectiveness of treatments for opioid use disorder related to prescription drug use or stimulant use and evidence was limited for adolescents or pregnant persons.
Conclusions: Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations. Although the applicability of data from such trials to persons whose drug use is identified through primary care-based screening is uncertain, intervention trials that enrolled patients based on screening identified a spectrum of drug use, ranging from mild drug use to more severe, untreated disease. The applicability of current evidence on drug use interventions to screening might be greater for the subset of patients screened in primary care settings with severe, untreated drug use who could utilize pharmacotherapies or more intensive psychosocial interventions.
|
Resource Allocation and Pandemic Response: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision-Making
Public Report
Complete
Statistics: 201 Studies,
1 Key Question,
1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Jun 10, 2020 03:01PM
Description: None Provided
|
Integrating Palliative Care in Ambulatory Care of Non-Cancer Serious Chronic Illness
Public Report
Complete
Statistics: 40 Studies,
15 Key Questions,
1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Oct 15, 2020 12:38AM
Description: Objectives. To evaluate availability, effectiveness, and implementation of interventions for integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for U.S.-based adults with serious life-threatening chronic illness or conditions other than cancer and their caregivers We evaluated interventions addressing identification of patients, patient and caregiver education, shared decision-making tools, clinician education, and models of care.
Data sources. We searched key U.S. national websites (March 2020) and PubMed®, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through May 2020). We also engaged Key Informants.
Review methods. We completed a mixed-methods review; we sought, synthesized, and integrated Web resources; quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies; and input from patient/caregiver and clinician/stakeholder Key Informants. Two reviewers screened websites and search results, abstracted data, assessed risk of bias or study quality, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for key outcomes: health-related quality of life, patient overall symptom burden, patient depressive symptom scores, patient and caregiver satisfaction, and advance directive documentation. We performed meta-analyses when appropriate.
Results. We included 46 Web resources, 20 quantitative effectiveness studies, and 16 qualitative implementation studies across primary care and specialty populations. Various prediction models, tools, and triggers to identify patients are available, but none were evaluated for effectiveness or implementation. Numerous patient and caregiver education tools are available, but none were evaluated for effectiveness or implementation. All of the shared decision-making tools addressed advance care planning; these tools may increase patient satisfaction and advance directive documentation compared with usual care (SOE: Low). Patients and caregivers prefer advance care planning discussions grounded in patient and caregiver experiences with individualized timing. Although numerous education and training resources for non-palliative care clinicians are available, we were unable to draw conclusions about implementation, and none have been evaluated for effectiveness. Models for integrating palliative care were not more effective than usual care for improving health-related quality of life or patient depressive symptom scores (SOE: Moderate) and may have little to no effect on increasing patient satisfaction or decreasing overall symptom burden (SOE: Low), but models for integrating palliative care were effective for increasing advance directive documentation (SOE: Moderate). Multimodal interventions may have little to no effect on increasing advance directive documentation (SOE: Low) and other graded outcomes were not assessed. For utilization, models for integrating palliative care were not more effective than usual care for decreasing hospitalizations; we were unable to draw conclusions about most other aspects of utilization or cost and resource use. We were unable to draw conclusions about caregiver satisfaction or specific characteristics of models for integrating palliative care. Patient preferences for appropriate timing of palliative care varied; costs, additional visits, and travel were seen as barriers to implementation.
Conclusions. For integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for serious illness and conditions other than cancer, advance care planning shared decision-making tools and palliative care models were the most widely evaluated interventions and may be effective for improving only a few outcomes. More research is needed particularly on identification of patients for these interventions; education for patients, caregivers, and clinicians; shared decision-making tools beyond advance care planning and advance directive completion; and specific components, characteristics, and implementation factors in models for integrating palliative care.
|
Care Interventions for People Living With Dementia (PLWD) and Their Caregivers [Entered Retrospectively]
Public Report
Complete
Statistics: 634 Studies,
1 Key Question,
1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Aug 12, 2020 10:24PM
Description: Structured Abstract
Objective. To understand the evidence base for care interventions for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, and to assess the potential for broad dissemination and implementation of that evidence.
Data sources. We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and quasi-experimental designs published and indexed in bibliographic databases through March, 2020.
Review methods. We searched for nondrug interventions targeting PLWD, their informal or formal caregivers, or health systems. Two investigators screened abstracts and full-text articles of identified references for eligibility. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental observational studies enrolling people with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias or their informal or formal caregivers. We extracted basic study information from all eligible studies. We assessed risk of bias, and summarized results for studies not judged to be NIH Stage Model 0 to 2 (pilot or small sample size studies) or to have high risk of bias. We grouped interventions into categories based on intervention target.
Results. We identified 9217 unique references, of which 627 unique studies with an additional 267 companion articles were eligible. We classified interventions into 37 major categories. With few exceptions, we did not combine data quantitatively due to variability of interventions, comparison groups, outcomes measured, and study timing. Low-strength evidence shows that an intensive multicomponent intervention for informal caregiver support, with education, group discussion, in-home and phone support, and caregiver feedback (i.e. discrete adaptations of REACH II), may improve informal caregiver depression at 6 months. Low-strength evidence also shows that collaborative care models (i.e. Care Ecosystems or discrete adaptations of the ACCESS models) may improve quality of life for PLWD and health system-level markers, including improvements in guideline-based quality indicators and reducing emergency room visits. The literature does not allow for further determination of whether the very small to small average effects in quality of life applied to all enrolled PLWD or if larger effects were concentrated in an unidentified subgroup. For all other interventions and outcomes, we found the evidence insufficient to draw conclusions. Insufficient evidence does not mean that the intervention is determined to be of no value to PLWD or their caregivers. Rather, it means that due to the uncertainty of the evidence, we could not draw meaningful conclusions at this time.
Conclusions. Despite hundreds of studies, very little evidence supports widespread dissemination of any general care approaches for PLWD or caregivers. This review demonstrates the need for larger, longer-term, and more rigorous studies of interventions.
|
Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer [Entered Retrospectively]
Public Report
Complete
Statistics: 67 Studies,
1 Key Question,
1 Extraction Form,
Date Created: Jul 28, 2020 06:39PM
Description: Structured Abstract
Objective. To identify new information that updates findings from previous AHRQ and AUA funded reviews evaluating therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer (CLPC).
Sources. Bibliographic databases (2013-January 2020); ClinicalTrials.gov; systematic reviews
Methods. Controlled studies of CLPC (T1-T3a) treatments with duration ≥5 years for mortality and metastases and ≥1 year for quality of life and harms. Interventions included watchful waiting (WW), active surveillance or monitoring (AS, AM), androgen deprivation (AD), focal and whole gland therapies or combinations. We evaluated how patient and tumor characteristics modify treatment outcomes and how provider/hospital characteristics modify effectiveness of radical prostatectomy (RP) compared to other therapies. One investigator rated risk of bias (ROB), extracted data, and assessed certainty of evidence; a second checked accuracy. We analyzed English-language studies with low or medium ROB. We incorporated findings from RCTs identified in the 2014 AHRQ and 2016 AUA funded reviews if new RCTs provided information on the same intervention comparison. We derived thresholds defining “small”, “moderate” and “large” effect, summarize key findings from prior reviews and the impact of new research.
Results. We identified 67 eligible references; 17 unique RCTs. Among clinically, rather than PSA detected CLPC, WW may increase overall and prostate-cancer mortality, and metastases versus RP at 20+ years. Urinary and erectile dysfunction were lower with WW versus RP. WW‘s effect on mortality may have varied by tumor risk and age but not by race, health status, comorbidities or PSA. AM probably results in little to no difference in overall or prostate-cancer mortality in PSA detected CLPC versus RP or EBR plus AD through 10 years regardless of tumor risk. Metastases were infrequent but slightly higher with AM. Harms were greater with RP than AM and mixed between EBR plus AD versus AM. 3D-Conformal EBR and AD plus low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) provided a small reduction in all-cause mortality versus 3D-CRT and AD but little to no difference on metastases. EBR plus AD versus EBR alone may have resulted in a small reduction in overall and prostate-cancer mortality and metastases in higher risk disease but may increase sexual harms. EBR plus initiating neoadjuvant AD versus EBR plus initiating concurrent AD may result in little to no difference in mortality at 12 years and genitourinary toxicity at 3 years. Conventionally fractionated EBR versus ultra-hypofractionated EBR may result in little to no difference in mortality and metastasis at 5 years and urinary and bowel toxicity at 2 years. Limited evidence suggested that AS results in fewer harms than photodynamic therapy and laparoscopic RP resulted in more harms than robotic-assisted RP. There was little to no information on long-term comparative effectiveness of other treatments. No studies evaluated WW or AS in screen detected CLPC or MRI for risk assessment or were conducted since effective pharmacologic therapies for advanced disease. No studies assessed provider or hospital factors of RP comparative effectiveness.
Conclusions. RP reduces mortality versus WW in clinically detected CLPC but causes more harms. Effectiveness may be limited to younger men, those with intermediate risk disease and requires many years to occur. AM results in little to no mortality difference versus RP or EBR plus AD. EBR plus AD reduces mortality versus EBR alone in higher risk CLPC but may worsen sexual function. Adding low-dose-rate BT to 3D-Conformal EBR and AD may reduce mortality in higher risk CLPC. Little information exists on other treatments or the effects of patient, tumor and provider factors. Large, long-term RCTs in PSA-detected and MRI staged CLPC are needed.
|
|
Creative Commons