MEDLINE

Basi-vertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation is a new approach to management of chronic low back pain that appears to be fairly effective though more research is needed. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objective. To provide an estimate of the effectiveness of basivertebral nerve (BVN) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to
treat vertebrogenic low back pain (LBP). Design. Systematic review with single-arm meta-analysis. Population.
Persons 18 years of age with chronic LBP associated with type 1 or 2 Modic changes. Intervention. Intraosseous
BVN RFA. Comparison. Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none. Outcomes. The proportion
of patients treated with BVN RFA who reported 50% pain score improvement on a visual analog scale or numeric
rating scale. The main secondary outcome was 15-point improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score. Methods.
Three reviewers independently assessed articles published before December 6, 2021, in MEDLINE and Embase. The
Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to evaluate
the overall quality of evidence. Results. Of the 856 unique records screened, 12 publications met the inclusion criteria,
representing six unique study populations, with 414 participants allocated to receive BVN RFA. Single-arm metaanalysis showed a success rate of 65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51–78%) and 64% (95% CI 43–82%) for 50%
pain relief at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Rates of 15-point Oswestry Disability Index score improvement were
75% (95% CI 63–86%) and 75% (95% CI 63–85%) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Conclusion. According to GRADE,
there is moderate-quality evidence that BVN RFA effectively reduces pain and disability in most patients with vertebr

Author/s:

Conger, A., Burnham, T. R., Clark, T., Teramoto, M, McCormick, Z. L.

Evidence-Based Guideline: Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children and Adults: Report of the Guideline Committee of the American Epilepsy Society

Bethie Seay — Tue, 30 Nov 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 30, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Epilepsy Currents

Publication Date:

January 1, 2016

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

48-61

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.5698/1535-7597-16.1.48

PMID (1):

26900382

MeSH

Respiratory Insufficiency

Algorithms

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

I thought I would place this guideline for treatment of status epilepticus in the RPR library as a reference. It might also be worth posting the recommended doses and routes of administration of the recommended benzos and assuring that one of them is available if needed.

View

CONTEXT: The optimal pharmacologic treatment for early convulsive status epilepticus is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To analyze efficacy, tolerability and safety data for anticonvulsant treatment of children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus and use this analysis to develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm. DATA SOURCES: Structured literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane library supplemented with article reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of anticonvulsant treatment for seizures lasting longer than 5 minutes. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual studies were rated using predefined criteria and these results were used to form recommendations, conclusions, and an evidence-based treatment algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified, rated and contributed to the assessment. Only four trials were considered to have class I evidence of efficacy. Two studies were rated as class II and the remaining 32 were judged to have class III evidence. In adults with convulsive status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam, intravenous lorazepam, intravenous diazepam and intravenous phenobarbital are established as efficacious as initial therapy (Level A). Intramuscular midazolam has superior effectiveness compared to intravenous lorazepam in adults with convulsive status epilepticus without established intravenous access (Level A). In children, intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam are established as efficacious at stopping seizures lasting at least 5 minutes (Level A) while rectal diazepam, intramuscular midazolam, intranasal midazolam, and buccal midazolam are probably effective (Level B). No significant difference in effectiveness has been demonstrated between intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam in adults or children with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). Respiratory and cardiac symptoms are the most commonly encountered treatment-emergent adverse events associated with intravenous anticonvulsant drug administration in adults with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). The rate of respiratory depression in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepines is lower than in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with placebo indicating that respiratory problems are an important consequence of untreated convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). When both are available, fosphenytoin is preferred over phenytoin based on tolerability but phenytoin is an acceptable alternative (Level A). In adults, compared to the first therapy, the second therapy is less effective while the third therapy is substantially less effective (Level A). In children, the second therapy appears less effective and there are no data about third therapy efficacy (Level C). The evidence was synthesized into a treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials, practical conclusions and an integrated treatment algorithm for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus across the age spectrum (infants through adults) can be constructed. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze additional randomized controlled trials that can answer the many outstanding clinically relevant questions identified in this guideline.

Author/s:

Glauser, T., Shinnar, S., Gloss, D., Alldredge, B., Arya, R., Bainbridge, J., Bare, M., Bleck, T., Dodson, W. E., Garrity, L., Jagoda, A., Lowenstein, D., Pellock, J., Riviello, J., Sloan, E., Treiman, D. M.

Short-term and Long-term Rates of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review

Bethie Seay — Sun, 07 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 7, 2021

Journal/Publication:

JAMA Network Open

Publication Date:

October 13, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

e2128568

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28568

A summary of post-COVID symptoms and their duration based upon studies involving more than 250,000 cases.

View

Importance
Short-term and long-term persistent postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) have not been systematically evaluated. The incidence and evolution of PASC are dependent on time from infection, organ systems and tissue affected, vaccination status, variant of the virus, and geographic region.

Objective
To estimate organ system–specific frequency and evolution of PASC.

Evidence Review
PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, and CoronaCentral databases were searched from December 2019 through March 2021. A total of 2100 studies were identified from databases and through cited references. Studies providing data on PASC in children and adults were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for abstracting data were followed and performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. The main outcome was frequency of PASC diagnosed by (1) laboratory investigation, (2) radiologic pathology, and (3) clinical signs and symptoms. PASC were classified by organ system, ie, neurologic; cardiovascular; respiratory; digestive; dermatologic; and ear, nose, and throat as well as mental health, constitutional symptoms, and functional mobility.

Findings
From a total of 2100 studies identified, 57 studies with 250 351 survivors of COVID-19 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19. High-income countries contributed 45 studies (79%). The median (IQR) proportion of COVID-19 survivors experiencing at least 1 PASC was 54.0% (45.0%-69.0%; 13 studies) at 1 month (short-term), 55.0% (34.8%-65.5%; 38 studies) at 2 to 5 months (intermediate-term), and 54.0% (31.0%-67.0%; 9 studies) at 6 or more months (long-term). Most prevalent pulmonary sequelae, neurologic disorders, mental health disorders, functional mobility impairments, and general and constitutional symptoms were chest imaging abnormality (median [IQR], 62.2% [45.8%-76.5%]), difficulty concentrating (median [IQR], 23.8% [20.4%-25.9%]), generalized anxiety disorder (median [IQR], 29.6% [14.0%-44.0%]), general functional impairments (median [IQR], 44.0% [23.4%-62.6%]), and fatigue or muscle weakness (median [IQR], 37.5% [25.4%-54.5%]), respectively. Other frequently reported symptoms included cardiac, dermatologic, digestive, and ear, nose, and throat disorders.

Conclusions and Relevance
In this systematic review, more than half of COVID-19 survivors experienced PASC 6 months after recovery. The most common PASC involved functional mobility impairments, pulmonary abnormalities, and mental health disorders. These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Author/s:

Groff, D., Sun, A., Ssentongo, A. E., Ba, D. M., Parsons, N., Poudel, G. R., Lekoubou, A., Oh, J. S., Ericson, J. E., Ssentongo, P., Chinchilli, V. M.

Living Systematic Review on Cannabis and Other Plant-Based Treatments for Chronic Pain

Bethie Seay — Tue, 02 Nov 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

November 2, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 27, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

EHC036

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER250

This is a summary of the evidence available to date on cannabis and other plant-based treatments for chronic pain.

View

Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds to treat chronic pain.

Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request were searched to July 2021.

Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect or small, moderate, and large effects.

Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic products with high-THC to CBD ratios were associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant products with high-THC to CBD ratios (oral) were associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD ratio (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical CBD, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported.

Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio extracted cannabinoids and synthetic products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for whole-plant cannabis, and other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment, indicate that more research is needed.

Author/s:

McDonagh, M. S., Wagner, J., Ahmed, A. Y., Morasco, B., Kansagara, D., Chou, R.

Malnutrition in hospitalized adults: A systematic review

Bethie Seay — Thu, 14 Oct 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

October 14, 2021

Journal/Publication:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

October 13, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

EHC035

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER249

A summary of what we know about the impact and management of malnutrition in hospitalized patients.

View

Objectives. To review the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients, evaluate effectiveness of measurement tools for malnutrition on clinical outcomes, and assess effectiveness of hospital-initiated interventions for patients diagnosed with malnutrition.

Data sources. We searched electronic databases (Embase®, MEDLINE®, PubMed®, and the Cochrane Library) from January 1, 2000, to June 3, 2021. We hand-searched reference lists of relevant studies and searched for unpublished studies in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected (1) existing systematic reviews (SRs) to assess the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes, (2) randomized and non-randomized studies to evaluate the effectiveness of malnutrition tools on clinical outcomes, and (3) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess effectiveness of hospital-initiated treatments for malnutrition. Clinical outcomes of interest included mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, quality of life, functional status, activities of daily living, hospital acquired conditions, wound healing, and discharge disposition. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to quantitatively summarize study findings; otherwise, data were narratively synthesized. When available, we used pooled estimates from existing SRs to determine the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes, and assessed the strength of evidence.

Results. Six existing SRs (including 43 unique studies) provided evidence on the association between malnutrition and clinical outcomes. Low to moderate strength of evidence (SOE) showed an association between malnutrition and increased hospital mortality and prolonged hospital length of stay. This association was observed across patients hospitalized for an acute medical event requiring intensive care unit care, heart failure, and cirrhosis. Literature searches found no studies that met inclusion criteria and assessed effectiveness of measurement tools. The primary reason studies did not meet inclusion criteria is because they lacked an appropriate control group. Moderate SOE from 11 RCTs found that hospital-initiated malnutrition interventions likely reduce mortality compared with usual care among hospitalized patients diagnosed with malnutrition. Low SOE indicated that hospital-initiated malnutrition interventions may also improve quality of life compared to usual care.

Conclusions. Evidence shows an association between malnutrition and increased mortality and prolonged length of hospital stay among hospitalized patients identified as malnourished. However, the strength of this association varied depending on patient population and tool used to identify malnutrition. Evidence indicates malnutrition-focused hospital-initiated interventions likely reduce mortality and may improve quality of life compared to usual care among patients diagnosed with malnutrition. Research is needed to assess the clinical utility of measurement tools for malnutrition.

Author/s:

Uhl, S., Siddique, S. M., McKeever, L., Bloschichak, A., D'Anci, K., Leas, B., Mull, N. K, Tsou, A. Y.

Interventional Treatments for Acute and Chronic Pain: Systematic Review

Bethie Seay — Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

September 13, 2021

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER247

A review of the evidence regarding the use of vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and cool radiofrequency denervation for acute and chronic back pain.

View

Objective. To evaluate the benefits and harms of selected interventional procedures for acute and chronic pain that are not currently covered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) but are relevant for and have potential utility for use in the Medicare population, or that are covered by CMS but for which there is important uncertainty or controversy regarding use.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to April 12, 2021, reference lists, and submissions in response to a Federal Register notice.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for 10 interventional procedures and conditions that evaluated pain, function, health status, quality of life, medication use, and harms. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted for vertebral compression fracture; otherwise, outcomes were synthesized qualitatively. Effects were classified as small, moderate, or large using previously defined criteria.

Results. Thirty-seven randomized trials (in 48 publications) were included. Vertebroplasty (13 trials) is probably more effective at reducing pain and improving function in older (>65 years of age) patients, but benefits are small (less than 1 point on a 10-point pain scale). Benefits appear smaller (but still present) in sham-controlled (5 trials) compared with usual care controlled trials (8 trials) and larger in trials of patients with more acute symptoms; however, testing for subgroup effects was limited by imprecision. Vertebroplasty is probably not associated with increased risk of incident vertebral fracture (10 trials). Kyphoplasty (2 trials) is probably more effective than usual care for pain and function in older patients with vertebral compression fracture at up to 1 month (moderate to large benefits) and may be more effective at >1 month to ≥1 year (small to moderate benefits) but has not been compared against sham therapy. Evidence on kyphoplasty and risk of incident fracture was conflicting. In younger (below age for Medicare eligibility) populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation for sacroiliac pain (2 trials) is probably more effective for pain and function versus sham at 1 and 3 months (moderate to large benefits). Cooled radiofrequency for presumed facet joint pain may be similarly effective versus conventional radiofrequency, and piriformis injection with corticosteroid for piriformis syndrome may be more effective than sham injection for pain. For the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed, evidence was too limited to determine benefits and harms.

Conclusions. Vertebroplasty is probably effective at reducing pain and improving function in older patients with vertebral compression fractures; benefits are small but similar to other therapies recommended for pain. Evidence was too limited to separate effects of control type and symptom acuity on effectiveness of vertebroplasty. Kyphoplasty has not been compared against sham but is probably more effective than usual care for vertebral compression fractures in older patients. In younger populations, cooled radiofrequency denervation is probably more effective than sham for sacroiliac pain. Research is needed to determine the benefits and harms of the other interventional procedures and conditions addressed in this review.

Author/s:

Chou, R., Fu, R., Dana, T., Pappas, M., Hart, E., Mauer, K. M.

Conservative versus surgical management for patients with rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and META-analysis

Devin Evans — Wed, 03 Feb 2021 06:00:00 +0000

Date Added:

February 3, 2021

Journal/Publication:

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Publication Date:

January 8, 2021

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

URL:

Conservative versus surgical management for patients with rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and META-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1186/s12891-020-03872-4

Keywords

Conservative treatment

PMID (1):

33419401

MeSH

conservative treatment

Shoulder

MEDLINE

pain

This meta-analysis found very little benefit from rotator cuff surgery in patients with full thickness tears compared to conservative management. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Background: This study aims to compare conservative versus surgical management for patients with full-thickness RC tear in terms of clinical and structural outcomes at 1 and 2 years of follow-up.

Methods: A comprehensive search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and reference lists of retrieved articles was performed since the inception of each database until August 2020. According to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, two independent authors screened all suitable studies for the inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Only randomised controlled trials comparing conservative and surgical management of full-thickness RC tear in adults were included. The primary outcome measure was the effectiveness of each treatment in terms of Constant-Murley score (CMS) and VAS pain score at different time points. The secondary outcome was the integrity of the repaired tendon evaluated on postoperative MRI at different time points. The GRADE guidelines were used to assess the critical appraisal status and quality of evidence.

Results: A total of six articles met the inclusion criteria. The average value of CMS score at 12 months of follow-up was 77.6 ± 14.4 in the surgery group and 72.8 ± 16.5 in the conservative group, without statistically significant differences between the groups. Similar results were demonstrated at 24 months of follow-up. The mean of VAS pain score at 12 months of follow-up was 1.4 ± 1.6 in the surgery group and 2.4 ± 1.9 in the conservative group. Quantitative synthesis showed better results in favour of the surgical group in terms of VAS pain score one year after surgery (- 1.08, 95% CI - 1.58 to - 0.58; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: At a 2-year follow-up, shoulder function evaluated in terms of CMS was not significantly improved. Further high-quality level-I randomised controlled trials at longer term follow-up are needed to evaluate whether surgical and conservative treatment provide comparable long-term results.

Author/s:

Longo, Umile G., Ambrogioni, Laura R., Candela, Vincenzo, Berton, Alessandra, Carnevale, Arianna, Schena, Emiliano, Denaro, Vincenzo

Medical Care of Adults With Down Syndrome: A Clinical Guideline

Brian Desmarais — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:30:11 +0000

Date Added:

October 22, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Journal of the American Medical Association

Publication Date:

October 20, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

324

Pages:

1543-1556

URL:

Medical Care of Adults With Down Syndrome: A Clinical Guideline

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.17024

MeSH

cardiovascular diseases

Patient Advocacy

comorbidity

Abstracting and Indexing

A guideline for the medical care of adults with Down’s Syndrome (see Results section). James W. Mold,. MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Abstract

Importance: Down syndrome is the most common chromosomal condition, and average life expectancy has increased substantially, from 25 years in 1983 to 60 years in 2020. Despite the unique clinical comorbidities among adults with Down syndrome, there are no clinical guidelines for the care of these patients.

Objective: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for adults with Down syndrome.

Evidence review: The Global Down Syndrome Foundation Medical Care Guidelines for Adults with Down Syndrome Workgroup (n = 13) developed 10 Population/Intervention/ Comparison/Outcome (PICO) questions for adults with Down syndrome addressing multiple clinical areas including mental health (2 questions), dementia, screening or treatment of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, osteoporosis, atlantoaxial instability, thyroid disease, and celiac disease. These questions guided the literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, and the TRIP Database, searched from January 1, 2000, to February 26, 2018, with an updated search through August 6, 2020. Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology and the Evidence-to-Decision framework, in January 2019, the 13-member Workgroup and 16 additional clinical and scientific experts, nurses, patient representatives, and a methodologist developed clinical recommendations. A statement of good practice was made when there was a high level of certainty that the recommendation would do more good than harm, but there was little direct evidence.

Findings: From 11 295 literature citations associated with 10 PICO questions, 20 relevant studies were identified. An updated search identified 2 additional studies, for a total of 22 included studies (3 systematic reviews, 19 primary studies), which were reviewed and synthesized. Based on this analysis, 14 recommendations and 4 statements of good practice were developed. Overall, the evidence base was limited. Only 1 strong recommendation was formulated: screening for Alzheimer-type dementia starting at age 40 years. Four recommendations (managing risk factors for cardiovascular disease and stroke prevention, screening for obesity, and evaluation for secondary causes of osteoporosis) agreed with existing guidance for individuals without Down syndrome. Two recommendations for diabetes screening recommend earlier initiation of screening and at shorter intervals given the high prevalence and earlier onset in adults with Down syndrome.

Conclusions and relevance: These evidence-based clinical guidelines provide recommendations to support primary care of adults with Down syndrome. The lack of high-quality evidence limits the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.

Author/s:

Tsou, Amy Y., Bulova, Peter, Capone, George, Chicoine, Brian, Global Down Syndrome Foundation Medical Care Guidelines for Adults with Down Syndrome Workgroup

Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:42:30 +0000

Date Added:

June 12, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publication Date:

May 19, 2020

URL:

Reduction in Saturated Fat Intake for Cardiovascular Disease

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2.

MeSH

cardiovascular diseases

6-dimethylaminodibenzopyriodonium citrate

body mass index

Dietary replacement of saturated fatty acids with polyunsaturated fatty acids or carbohydrates for at least 2 years, appears to reduce the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Abstract

Background: Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from saturated fats eliminated from the diet are more helpfully replaced by polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, carbohydrate or protein.

Objectives: To assess the effect of reducing saturated fat intake and replacing it with carbohydrate (CHO), polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and/or protein on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, using all available randomised clinical trials.

Search methods: We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) on 15 October 2019, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 October 2019.

Selection criteria: Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and GRADE assessment.

Main results: We included 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (16 comparisons, ~59,000 participants), that used a variety of interventions from providing all food to advice on reducing saturated fat. The included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93, 11 trials, 53,300 participants of whom 8% had a cardiovascular event, I² = 65%, GRADE moderate-quality evidence). Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 56 in primary prevention trials, so 56 people need to reduce their saturated fat intake for ~four years for one person to avoid experiencing a CVD event. In secondary prevention trials, the NNTB was 32. Subgrouping did not suggest significant differences between replacement of saturated fat calories with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate, and data on replacement with monounsaturated fat and protein was very limited. We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes.

Authors' conclusions: The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00000611 NCT02062424 NCT00692536 NCT01954472 NCT01005498 NCT01634841 NCT03354377.

Author/s:

Hopper, L., Martin, N., Jimoh, O.F., Kirk, C., Foster, E., Abdelhamid, A.

Noninvasive Nonpharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review Update. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 227

John Bayhi — Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:16:34 +0000

Date Added:

April 17, 2020

Journal/Publication:

AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC009

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

April 16, 2020

URL:

Noninvasive Nonpharmacological Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review Update. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 227

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER227

Keywords

nonpharmacological treatment

MeSH

tension-type headache

Mindfulness

Low-Level Light Therapy

MEDLINE

follow-up studies

AHRQ evidence review of non-invasive, non-pharmacologic treatments for relief of chronic pain. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objectives. We updated the evidence from our 2018 report assessing persistent improvement in outcomes following completion of therapy for noninvasive nonpharmacological treatment for selected chronic pain conditions.

Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) through November 2017 (for prior report) and from September 2017 through September 2019 (for this update report), reference lists, ClinicalTrials.gov, and our previous report.

Review methods. Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of noninvasive nonpharmacological treatments for five common chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain; chronic neck pain; osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, or hand; fibromyalgia; and tension headache) that reported results for a at least 1 month postintervention. We analyzed effects and assessed strength of evidence (SOE) at short term (1 to <6 months following treatment completion), intermediate term (≥6 to <12 months), and long term (≥12 months).

Results. We included 233 RCTs (31 new to this update). Many were small (N<70), and evidence beyond 12 months after treatment completion was sparse. The most common comparison was with usual care. Evidence on harms was limited, with no evidence suggesting increased risk for serious treatment-related harms for any intervention. Effect sizes were generally small for function and pain.

Chronic low back pain: Psychological therapies were associated with small improvements compared with usual care or an attention control for both function and pain at short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term followup (SOE: moderate). Function improved over short and/or intermediate term for exercise, low-level laser therapy, spinal manipulation, massage, yoga, acupuncture, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE moderate at short term for exercise, massage, and yoga; low for all others). Improvements in pain at short term were seen for massage, mindfulness-based stress reduction, acupuncture, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: moderate), and exercise, low-level laser therapy, and yoga (SOE: low). At intermediate term, spinal manipulation, yoga, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: moderate) and exercise and mindfulness-based stress reduction (SOE: low) were associated with improved pain. Compared with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation improved both function and pain at short and intermediate terms (small effects, SOE: moderate.)

Chronic neck pain: In the short term, low-level laser therapy (SOE: moderate) and massage (SOE: low) improved function and pain. Exercise in general improved function long term, and combination exercise improved function and pain both short and long term compared with usual care (SOE: low). Acupuncture improved function short and intermediate term, but there was no pain improvement compared with sham acupuncture (SOE: low). Compared with acetaminophen, Pilates improved both function and pain (SOE: low).

Osteoarthritis pain: Exercise resulted in small improvements in function and pain at short-term (SOE: moderate) and long-term (SOE: low), and moderate improvement at intermediate-term (SOE: low) followup for knee osteoarthritis versus nonactive comparators. Small improvements in function and pain with exercise were seen for hip osteoarthritis short term (SOE: low). Functional improvement persisted into intermediate term, but pain improvement did not (SOE: low).

Fibromyalgia: Functional improvements were seen with exercise, mind-body practices, multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low) and acupuncture (SOE: moderate) short term compared with usual care, attention control, or sham treatment. At intermediate term, there was functional improvement with exercise and acupuncture (SOE: moderate), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based stress reduction, myofascial release, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (SOE: low). Long term, functional improvements persisted for multidisciplinary rehabilitation without improvement in pain (SOE: low). Compared with exercise, tai chi conferred improvement in function short and intermediate term (SOE: low). Pain was improved with exercise (short and intermediate term, SOE moderate), and for CBT (short term), mindfulness practices, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation (intermediate term) (SOE low).

Chronic tension headache: Evidence was sparse and the majority of trials were of poor quality. Spinal manipulation resulted in moderate improvement in pain short term.

Conclusions. Trials identified subsequent to the earlier report largely support previous findings—namely that exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, CBT, mindfulness practices, massage, and mind-body practices most consistently improve function and/or pain beyond the course of therapy for specific chronic pain conditions. Additional research, including comparisons with pharmacological and other active controls, on effects beyond the immediate post-treatment period is needed, particularly for conditions other than low back pain.

Author/s:

Skelly, AC, Chou, R, Dettori, JR, Turner, JA, Friedly, JL, Rundell, SD, Fu, Brodt, ED, Wasson, N, Kantner, S, Ferguson, AJR

Opioid Treatments for Chronic Pain. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 229

John Bayhi — Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:45:13 +0000

Date Added:

April 17, 2020

Journal/Publication:

AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC011

Publisher:

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Publication Date:

April 16, 2020

URL:

Opioid Treatments for Chronic Pain. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 229

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.23970/AHRQEPCCER229

Keywords

MeSH

opioid-related disorders

drug overdose

analgesics, non-narcotic

AHRQ evidence review of opioids for relief of chronic pain. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Objectives. Chronic pain is common, and opioid therapy is frequently prescribed for this condition. This report updates and expands on a prior Comparative Effectiveness Review on long-term (≥1 year) effectiveness and harms of opioid therapy for chronic pain, including evidence on shorter term (1 to 12 months) outcomes.

Data sources. A prior systematic review (searches through January 2014), electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase®, PsycINFO®, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through August 2019), reference lists, and clinical trials registries.

Review methods. Predefined criteria were used to select studies of patients with chronic pain prescribed opioids that addressed effectiveness or harms versus placebo, no opioid use, or nonopioid pharmacological therapies; different opioid dosing methods; or risk mitigation strategies. Effects were analyzed at short-term (1 to <6 months), intermediate-term (≥6 to <12 months), and long-term (≥12 months) followup. Studies on the accuracy of risk prediction instruments for predicting opioid use disorder or misuse were also included. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted on short-term trials of opioids versus placebo, opioids versus nonopioids, and opioids plus nonopioids versus an opioid or nonopioid alone. Magnitude of effects was classified as small, moderate, or large using predefined criteria, and strength of evidence was assessed.

Results. We included 115 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 40 observational studies, and 7 studies of predictive accuracy; 134 were new to this update. Opioids were associated with small benefits versus placebo in short-term pain, function, and sleep quality. There was a small dose-dependent effect on pain, and effects were attenuated at longer (3 to 6 month) versus shorter (1 to 3 month) followup. Opioids were associated with increased risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, gastrointestinal adverse events, somnolence, dizziness, and pruritus versus placebo. In observational studies, opioids were associated with increased risk of an opioid abuse or dependence diagnosis, overdose, all-cause mortality, fractures, falls, and myocardial infarction versus no opioid use; there was evidence of a dose-dependent risk for all outcomes except fracture and falls.

There were no differences between opioids and nonopioid medications in pain, function, or other short-term outcomes. Opioid plus nonopioid combination therapy was associated with little improvement in pain at short-term followup versus an opioid alone. Co-prescription of benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids was associated with increased risk of overdose versus an opioid alone. No RCT evaluated intermediate- or long-term benefits of opioids versus placebo. One trial found stepped therapy starting with opioids to be associated with higher pain intensity and no difference in function or other outcomes versus stepped therapy starting with nonopioid therapy.

Limited evidence indicated no differences between long- and short-acting opioids in effectiveness, but long-acting opioids were associated with increased risk of overdose. One RCT found a taper support intervention associated with greater improvement in function but no difference in pain versus usual care.

Estimates of diagnostic accuracy for various risk prediction instruments were highly inconsistent, and there was no evidence on the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for improving clinical outcomes, with the exception of one study that found provision of naloxone associated with decreased emergency department visits.

Trials of patients with prescription opioid dependence found buprenorphine maintenance associated with better outcomes than buprenorphine taper and similar effects of methadone versus buprenorphine. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms of opioid therapy in patients at higher risk for opioid use disorder.

Conclusions. At short-term followup, for patients with chronic pain, opioids are associated with small beneficial effects versus placebo but are associated with increased risk of short-term harms and do not appear to be superior to nonopioid therapy. Evidence on intermediate-term and long-term benefits remains very limited, and additional evidence confirms an association between opioids and increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent. Research is needed to develop accurate risk prediction instruments, determine effective risk mitigation strategies, clarify risks associated with co-prescribed medications, and identify optimal opioid tapering strategies.

Author/s:

Chou, R, Hartung, D, Turner, J, Blazina, I, Chan, B, Levander, X, McDonagh, M, Selph, S, Fu, Pappas

Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Effects of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade on Outcomes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

John Bayhi — Sat, 14 Mar 2020 20:03:18 +0000

Date Added:

March 14, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The American Journal of Cardiology

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

January 30, 2020

URL:

Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Effects of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade on Outcomes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.01.009

Keywords

RAAS Anatgonists

heart failure

PMID (1):

32081366

ACEIs, ARBs, and spironolactone do not appear to reduce mortality or CHF hospitalizations in patients with CHF with preserved LV function. However, the combination of sacubitril (a neprilysin inhibitor) and valsartan may reduce CHF hospitalizations in those patients. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Clinical trials of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have suggested neutral results and treatment is focused on associated symptoms and comorbidities. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through October 2019 for randomized controlled studies investigating the effects of different RAAS antagonists in patients with HFpEF. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, trial defined cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. To compare different RAAS antagonists, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood network meta-analysis based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. We used p scores to rank best treatments per outcome. Our search identified 5 eligible clinical trials (PEP-CHF, perindopril; CHARM-preserved, candesartan; I-PRESERVE, irbesartan; TOPCAT, spironolactone; PARAGON-HF, sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan) enrolling a total 10,523 on RAAS antagonists and 6,259 controls. We did not identify any statistical difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among RAAS antagonists and placebo. The combination of sacubitril-valsartan was associated with significantly decreased HF hospitalization risk compared with controls (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.87) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.91), without heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 0). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) ranked better than other RAAS antagonists for HF hospitalizations (p value 0.9). In conclusion, RAAS antagonists do not affect mortality but the combination of sacubitril-valsartan is associated with lower HF hospitalizations in HFpEF patients.

Author/s:

Kuno, T, Ueyama, H, Fujisaki, T, Briasouli, A, Takagi, H, Briasoulis, A

Association between vitamin D supplementation and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

Brian Desmarais — Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:33:28 +0000

Date Added:

September 30, 2019

Journal/Publication:

BMJ

Publication Date:

August 12, 2019

URL:

Association between vitamin D supplementation and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1136/bmj.l4673

Keywords

cancer

cancer mortality

vitamin D

Vitamin D3 supplimentation

MeSH

cardiovascular diseases

Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Vitamin D3 supplementation appears to reduce cancer-related mortality. It is a little hard to tell whether it works regardless of initial 25OH VitD levels as this analysis suggests. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with lower mortality in adults.

DESIGN:

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES:

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from their inception to 26 December 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:

Randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin D supplementation with a placebo or no treatment for mortality were included. Independent data extraction was conducted and study quality assessed. A meta-analysis was carried out by using fixed effects and random effects models to calculate risk ratio of death in the group receiving vitamin D supplementation and the control group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

All cause mortality.

RESULTS:

52 trials with a total of 75 454 participants were identified. Vitamin D supplementation was not associated with all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.02, I2=0%), cardiovascular mortality (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08, 0%), or non-cancer, non-cardiovascular mortality (1.05, 0.93 to 1.18, 0%). Vitamin D supplementation statistically significantly reduced the risk of cancer death (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95, 0%). In subgroup analyses, all cause mortality was significantly lower in trials with vitamin D3 supplementation than in trials with vitamin D2 supplementation (P for interaction=0.04); neither vitamin D3 nor vitamin D2 was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS:

Vitamin D supplementation alone was not associated with all cause mortality in adults compared with placebo or no treatment. Vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of cancer death by 16%. Additional large clinical studies are needed to determine whether vitamin D3 supplementation is associated with lower all cause mortality.

STUDY REGISTRATION:

PROSPERO registration number CRD42018117823.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Author/s:

Zhang, Y., Fang, F., Tang, J., Jia, L., Feng, Y., Xu, P., Faramand, A.