Humans

Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of nonopioid pharmacologic agents in patients with specific types of chronic pain, considering effects on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through September 10, 2019, reference lists, data requests, and previous reviews.

Review methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nonopioid pharmacologic agents in patients with chronic pain were selected using predefined criteria and dual review. This review focused on seven common chronic pain conditions (neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, low back pain, chronic headache, sickle cell disease), with effects analyzed at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months). Magnitude of effects were described as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed. Meta-analyses were conducted where data allowed, stratified by duration within each intervention type, using random effects models. We evaluated effect modification through subgroup and sensitivity analyses, including specific drug, dose, study quality, and pain type.

Results. We included 185 RCTs in 221 publications and 5 systematic reviews. In the short term, anticonvulsants (pregabalin, gabapentin, and oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain, pregabalin/gabapentin for fibromyalgia), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressants (duloxetine for neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and low back pain, milnacipran for fibromyalgia), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis) were associated with mostly small improvements (e.g., 5 to 20 points on a 0 to 100 scale) in pain and function. Function was not found to be improved with duloxetine for low back pain or pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Moderate improvement in quality of life was seen with duloxetine in patients with neuropathic pain, and small improvements in patients with osteoarthritis, but evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions for other drugs and conditions. While most comparisons of drugs and doses did not identify differences, diclofenac improved pain and function moderately more than celecoxib. In the intermediate term, limited evidence (1 RCT) showed memantine moderately improved pain, function, and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia; improvements in pain, but not function, were maintained in the intermediate term with duloxetine and milnacipran for fibromyalgia. Other drugs studied, including acetaminophen (osteoarthritis), capsaicin (neuropathic pain), cannabis (neuropathic pain), amitriptyline (fibromyalgia, neuropathic pain), and cyclobenzaprine (fibromyalgia) had no clear effects. Withdrawal from study due to adverse events was significantly increased with nonopioid drugs, with the greatest increase over placebo seen with cannabis. Large increases in risk of adverse events were seen with pregabalin (blurred vision, cognitive effects, dizziness, peripheral edema, sedation, and weight gain), gabapentin (blurred vision, cognitive effects, sedation, weight gain), and cannabis (nausea, dizziness). Dose viii reductions reduced the risk of some adverse events with SNRI antidepressants. In the short term small increases in risk of major coronary events and moderate increases in serious gastrointestinal events (both short and long term) were found with NSAIDs.

Conclusions. In the short term, small improvements in pain and/or function were seen with SNRI antidepressants for neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and low back pain; pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia; oxcarbazepine for neuropathic pain; and NSAIDs for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis. Improvement in function was not found with duloxetine for low back pain and pregabalin/gabapentin for neuropathic pain. Intermediate- and long-term outcomes were mostly not assessed. Increased incidence of drug class–specific adverse events led to withdrawal from treatment in some patients, suggesting that careful consideration of patient characteristics is needed in selecting nonopioid drug treatments.

Background. Depressive disorders can affect long-term mental and physical health functioning among children and adolescents, including increased risk of suicide. Despite access to several nonpharmacological, pharmacological, and combined treatment options for childhood depression, clinicians contend with sparse evidence and are concerned about harms associated with treatment.

Methods. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and moderators of benefits and harms of available nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments for children and adolescents with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive disorder (DD)—major depressive disorder (MDD), persistent depressive disorder (previously termed dysthymia) or DD not otherwise specified. We searched five databases and other sources for evidence available from inception to May 29, 2019, dually screened the results, and analyzed eligible studies.

Results. We included in our analyses data from 60 studies (94 articles) that met our review eligibility criteria. For adolescents (study participants’ ages range from 12 to 18 years) with MDD, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), fluoxetine, escitalopram, and combined fluoxetine and CBT may improve depressive symptoms (1 randomized controlled trial [RCT] each, n ranges from 212 to 311); whether the magnitude of improvement is clinically significant is unclear. Among adolescents or children with MDD, CBT plus medications (8–17 years) may be associated with lower rates of relapse (1 RCT [n = 121]). In the same population (6–17 years), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may be associated with improved response (7 RCTs [n = 1,525]; risk difference [RD], 72/1,000 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2 to 24], I2 = 9%) and functional status (5 RCTs [n = 941]; standardized mean difference, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.29]; I2 = 0%). For adolescents or children with any DD (7–18 years), CBT or family therapy may be associated with improvements in symptoms, response, or functional status (1 RCT each, n ranges from 64 to 99). Among children with any DD (7–12 years), family-based interpersonal therapy may be associated with improved symptoms (1 RCT, n = 38). Psychotherapy trials did not report harms. SSRIs may be associated with a higher risk of serious adverse events among adolescents or children with MDD (7–18 years; 9 RCTs [n = 2,206]; RD, 20/1,000 [95% CI, 1 to 440]; I2, 4%) and with a higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events among adolescents with MDD (12–18 years; 4 RCTs [n = 1,296], RD, 26/1,000 [95% CI, 6 to 45]; I2, 0%). Paroxetine (1 RCT [n = 180]) may be associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation or behaviors among adolescents with MDD (12–18 years). Evidence was insufficient to judge the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior for other SSRIs for adolescents and children with MDD or other DD (7–18 years) (10 RCTs [n = 2,368]; relative risk, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.45]; I2, 8%). However, this report excluded data on inpatients and those without depressive disorders, whom the Food and Drug Administration included in finding an increased risk of suicidality for all antidepressants across all indications.

Conclusion. Efficacious treatments exist for adolescents with MDD. SSRIs may be associated with increased withdrawal and serious adverse events. No evidence on harms of psychotherapy were identified.

Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.

Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.

Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).

Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

IMPORTANCE:

Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

A cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups.

INTERVENTIONS:

Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed.

RESULTS:

Among 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, -0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]). There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, -21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, -8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, -33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, -8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39); and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, -11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08). In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported "always" or "sometimes" wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625.