Aaron L. Leppin

Drugs Commonly Associated With Weight Change: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT Various drugs affect body weight as a side effect. OBJECTIVE We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence about commonly prescribed drugs and their association with weight change. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, DARE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify published systematic reviews as a source for trials. STUDY SELECTION We included randomized trials that compared an a priori selected list of drugs to placebo and measured weight change. DATA EXTRACTION We extracted data in duplicate and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS We included 257 randomized trials (54 different drugs; 84 696 patients enrolled). Weight gain was associated with the use of amitriptyline (1.8 kg), mirtazapine (1.5 kg), olanzapine (2.4 kg), quetiapine (1.1 kg), risperidone (0.8 kg), gabapentin (2.2 kg), tolbutamide (2.8 kg), pioglitazone (2.6 kg), glimepiride (2.1 kg), gliclazide (1.8 kg), glyburide (2.6 kg), glipizide (2.2 kg), sitagliptin (0.55 kg), and nateglinide (0.3 kg). Weight loss was associated with the use of metformin (1.1 kg), acarbose (0.4 kg), miglitol (0.7 kg), pramlintide (2.3 kg), liraglutide (1.7 kg), exenatide (1.2 kg), zonisamide (7.7 kg), topiramate (3.8 kg), bupropion (1.3 kg), and fluoxetine (1.3 kg). For many other remaining drugs (including antihypertensives and antihistamines), the weight change was either statistically nonsignificant or supported by very low-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS Several drugs are associated with weight change of varying magnitude. Data are provided to guide the choice of drug when several options exist and institute preemptive weight loss strategies when obesogenic drugs are prescribed.

The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Importance Poor mental health places a burden on individuals and populations. Resilient persons are able to adapt to life’s challenges and maintain high quality of life and function. Finding effective strategies to bolster resilience in individuals and populations is of interest to many stakeholders. Objectives To synthesize the evidence for resiliency training programs in improving mental health and capacity in 1) diverse adult populations and 2) persons with chronic diseases. Data Sources Electronic databases, clinical trial registries, and bibliographies. We also contacted study authors and field experts. Study Selection Randomized trials assessing the efficacy of any program intended to enhance resilience in adults and published after 1990. No restrictions were made based on outcome measured or comparator used. Data Extraction and Synthesis Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to extract study characteristics and data. These were confirmed with authors. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis on available data and tested for interaction in planned subgroups. Main Outcomes The standardized mean difference (SMD) effect of resiliency training programs on 1) resilience/hardiness, 2) quality of life/well-being, 3) self-efficacy/activation, 4) depression, 5) stress, and 6) anxiety. Results We found 25 small trials at moderate to high risk of bias. Interventions varied in format and theoretical approach. Random effects meta-analysis showed a moderate effect of generalized stress-directed programs on enhancing resilience [pooled SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.57) p = .0002; I2 = 41%] within 3 months of follow up. Improvement in other outcomes was favorable to the interventions and reached statistical significance after removing two studies at high risk of bias. Trauma-induced stress-directed programs significantly improved stress [−0.53 (−1.04, −0.03) p = .03; I2 = 73%] and depression [−0.51 (−0.92, −0.10) p = .04; I2 = 61%]. Conclusions We found evidence warranting low confidence that resiliency training programs have a small to moderate effect at improving resilience and other mental health outcomes. Further study is needed to better define the resilience construct and to design interventions specific to it. Registration Number PROSPERO #CRD42014007185

Setting a research agenda for medical overuse

Although overuse in medicine is gaining increased attention, many questions remain unanswered. Dan Morgan and colleagues propose an agenda for coordinated research to improve our understanding of the problem

Minimally Disruptive Medicine: A Pragmatically Comprehensive Model for Delivering Care to Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions

An increasing proportion of healthcare resources in the United States are directed toward an expanding group of complex and multimorbid patients. Federal stakeholders have called for new models of care to meet the needs of these patients. Minimally Disruptive Medicine (MDM) is a theory-based, patient-centered, and context-sensitive approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health while imposing the smallest possible treatment burden on patients’ lives. The MDM Care Model is designed to be pragmatically comprehensive, meaning that it aims to address any and all factors that impact the implementation and effectiveness of care for patients with multiple chronic conditions. It comprises core activities that map to an underlying and testable theoretical framework. This encourages refinement and future study. Here, we present the conceptual rationale for and a practical approach to minimally disruptive care for patients with multiple chronic conditions. We introduce some of the specific tools and strategies that can be used to identify the right care for these patients and to put it into practice.

Testing for germline mutations in sporadic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma: a systematic review

The presence of germline mutations in sporadic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (SPPs) may change the clinical management of both index patients and their family members. However, the frequency of germline mutations in SPPs is unknown.

The efficacy of resilience training programs: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundResilience has been defined as the ability of individuals to manage and adapt to stress and life challenges. Training programs that develop and/or enhance resilience may have efficacy in improving health, well-being, and quality of life. Because patients with chronic conditions must reliably self-manage their health, strategies to bolster resilience in this population may be of particular value. The objectives of this systematic review are to synthesize the evidence of resilience training program efficacy in improving outcomes related to quality of life, self-efficacy and activation, and resilience and coping ability in: 1) diverse adult populations; and 2) patients with chronic conditions.Methods/DesignWe will conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any program designed to enhance resilience in adults that measure any outcome against any comparator. We will search multiple electronic databases, trial registries, bibliographies, and will contact authors and experts to identify studies. We will use systematic review software to independently and in duplicate screen reports and extract data. We will extract characteristics of the study populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and quality/risk of bias. Primary, patient reported outcomes will be categorized into domains of quality of life, self-efficacy, and resilience. Secondary outcomes will be considered based on findings of the review. We will attempt meta-analysis by pooling standardized mean differences and minimally important differences (MIDs), when possible. Planned trial subgroup analyses are: 1) studies of patients with chronic conditions; 2) studies with placebo controls; 3) studies with similar intervention characteristics; and 4) studies with common lengths of follow-up.DiscussionThis study is intended to accumulate the evidence for resilience training programs in improving quality of life, resilience, and self-efficacy for care management, particularly among adult patients with chronic conditions. Its findings will be valuable to policy-makers, funding agencies, clinicians, and patients seeking innovative and effective ways to achieve patient-centered care.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007185.

Patient capacity and constraints in the experience of chronic disease: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

BackgroundLife and healthcare demand work from patients, more so from patients living with multimorbidity. Patients must respond by mobilizing available abilities and resources, their so-called capacity. We sought to summarize accounts of challenges that reduce patient capacity to access or use healthcare or to enact self-care while carrying out their lives.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature published since 2000 identifying from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL and retrieving selected abstracts for full text assessment for inclusion. After assessing their methodological rigor, we coded their results using a thematic synthesis approach.ResultsThe 110 reports selected, when synthesized, showed that patient capacity is an accomplishment of interaction with (1) the process of rewriting their biographies and making meaningful lives in the face of chronic condition(s); (2) the mobilization of resources; (3) healthcare and self-care tasks, particularly, the cognitive, emotional, and experiential results of accomplishing these tasks despite competing priorities; (4) their social networks; and (5) their environment, particularly when they encountered kindness or empathy about their condition and a feasible treatment plan.ConclusionPatient capacity is a complex and dynamic construct that exceeds “resources” alone. Additional work needs to translate this emerging theory into useful practice for which we propose a clinical mnemonic (BREWS) and the ICAN Discussion Aid.

A practical framework for understanding and reducing medical overuse: Conceptualizing overuse through the patient-clinician interaction

&NA; Overuse of medical services is an increasingly recognized driver of poor‐quality care and high cost. A practical framework is needed to guide clinical decisions and facilitate concrete actions that can reduce overuse and improve care. We used an iterative, expert‐informed, evidence‐based process to develop a framework for conceptualizing interventions to reduce medical overuse. Given the complexity of defining and identifying overused care in nuanced clinical situations and the need to define care appropriateness in the context of an individual patient, this framework conceptualizes the patient‐clinician interaction as the nexus of decisions regarding inappropriate care. This interaction is influenced by other utilization drivers, including healthcare system factors, the practice environment, the culture of professional medicine, the culture of healthcare consumption, and individual patient and clinician factors. The variable strength of the evidence supporting these domains highlights important areas for further investigation.

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in chronic conditions: a review protocol

BackgroundChronic conditions are a major source of morbidity, mortality and cost worldwide. Shared decision making is one way to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. Although it has been widely studied, the effect of shared decision making in the context of chronic conditions is unknown.Methods/DesignWe will perform a systematic review with the objective of determining the effectiveness of shared decision making interventions for persons diagnosed with chronic conditions. We will search the following databases for relevant articles: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid EBM Reviews CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Ovid PsycInfo. We will also search clinical trial registries and contact experts in the field to identify additional studies. We will include randomized controlled trials studying shared decision making interventions in patients with chronic conditions who are facing an actual decision. Shared decision making interventions will be defined as any intervention aiming to facilitate or improve patient and/or clinician engagement in a decision making process. We will describe all studies and assess their quality. After adjusting for missing data, we will analyze the effect of shared decision making interventions on outcomes in chronic conditions overall and stratified by condition. We will evaluate outcomes according to an importance ranking informed by a variety of stakeholders. We will perform several exploratory analyses including the effect of author contact on the estimates of effect.DiscussionWe anticipate that this systematic review may have some limitations such as heterogeneity and imprecision; however, the results will contribute to improving the quality of care for individuals with chronic conditions and facilitate a process that allows decision making that is most consistent with their own values and preferences.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42013005784

Shared decision-making and comparative effectiveness research for patients with chronic conditions: an urgent synergy for better health

Chronic conditions are the most important cause of morbidity, mortality and health expense in the USA. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to provide evidence supporting the relative value of alternative courses of action. This research often concludes with estimates of the likelihood of desirable and undesirable outcomes associated with each option. Patients with chronic conditions should engage with their clinicians in deciding which of these options best fits their goals and context. In practicing shared decision-making (SDM), clinicians and patients should make use of CER to inform their deliberations. In these ways, SDM and CER are interrelated. SDM translates CER into patient-centered practice, while CER provides the backbone evidence about options and outcomes in SDM interventions. In this review, we explore the potential for a SDM-CER synergy in improving healthcare for patients with chronic conditions.