Lise M. Bjerre

Expressing the magnitude of adverse effects in case-control studies: “the number of patients needed to be treated for one additional patient to be harmed”

The need to express estimates of risk in an understandable manner is a challenge faced regularly by those who work with the results of epidemiological studies and try to convey their meaning to others. This is not an easy task, as is illustrated by the recent “pill scare” in the United Kingdom, in which there was much confusion over the clinical importance of the scientific information that was made public. Furthermore, practising clinicians also need a readily understandable tool for weighing the risks of various treatments. Ideally, this should be feasible without recourse to complicated statistical concepts. In this paper, we propose a simple and intuitively understandable method for expressing the results of case-control studies. #### Summary points Results of epidemiological studies need to be expressed in understandable terms if they are to be of practical use to clinicians and policy makers Case-control studies are often used to study adverse effects of treatment; odds ratios from these are used to express the magnitude of adverse effects, but are not intuitively understandable estimates of risk A more understandable and informative means of expressing the risk of adverse events in case-control studies is “the number of patients needed to be treated for one additional patient to be harmed” This is calculated from the odds ratio and the unexposed event ratemdash;that is, the rate of occurrence of the adverse event of interest in people not exposed to the treatment Any intervention or exposure may have desirable and undesirable effects. Desirable effects are usually the intended effects of a treatment. These will often (at least for pharmacological interventions) have been established in randomised controlled trials before an agent is released onto the market and introduced into clinical practice. In the context of randomised trials on the desirable effects of treatments, Sackett et al proposed a method for …

Associations between Anticholinergic Burden and Adverse Health Outcomes in Parkinson Disease

Background Elderly adults should avoid medications with anticholinergic effects since they may increase the risk of adverse events, including falls, delirium, and cognitive impairment. However, data on anticholinergic burden are limited in subpopulations, such as individuals with Parkinson disease (PD). The objective of this study was to determine whether anticholinergic burden was associated with adverse outcomes in a PD inpatient population. Methods Using the Cerner Health Facts® database, we retrospectively examined anticholinergic medication use, diagnoses, and hospital revisits within a cohort of 16,302 PD inpatients admitted to a Cerner hospital between 2000 and 2011. Anticholinergic burden was computed using the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS). Primary outcomes were associations between ARS score and diagnosis of fracture and delirium. Secondary outcomes included associations between ARS score and 30-day hospital revisits. Results Many individuals (57.8%) were prescribed non-PD medications with moderate to very strong anticholinergic potential. Individuals with the greatest ARS score (≥4) were more likely to be diagnosed with fractures (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.56, 95% CI: 1.29–1.88) and delirium (AOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.08–2.40) relative to those with no anticholinergic burden. Similarly, inpatients with the greatest ARS score were more likely to visit the emergency department (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1.32, 95% CI: 1.10–1.58) and be readmitted (AHR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.01–1.33) within 30-days of discharge. Conclusions We found a positive association between increased anticholinergic burden and adverse outcomes among individuals with PD. Additional pharmacovigilance studies are needed to better understand risks associated with anticholinergic medication use in PD.

Methodology for Developing Deprescribing Guidelines: Using Evidence and GRADE to Guide Recommendations for Deprescribing.

Background Class specific deprescribing guidelines could help clinicians taper and stop medications no longer needed or which may be causing more harm than benefit. We set out to develop methodology to create such guidelines using evidence-based methods for guideline development, evidence synthesis and recommendation rating. Methods and Findings Using a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise, we conducted a national modified Delphi consensus process to identify priorities for deprescribing guidelines, then conducted scoping exercises to identify feasible topics, and sequentially developed three deprescribing guidelines. We selected guideline development team members for clinical expertise; a GRADE member worked with staff to ensure guideline development processes were followed. We conducted or used systematic searches and reviews of deprescribing trials of selected drug classes, reviews or systematic reviews of drug class effectiveness, reviews of reviews of drug class harm and narrative syntheses of contextual questions to inform recommendations and guideline development. Our 8 step process for guideline development included defining scope and purpose, developing a logic model to guide the process and generate key clinical questions, setting criteria for admissible evidence and conducting systematic reviews, synthesizing evidence considering additional contextual information and performing quality estimates, formulating recommendations and providing strength estimations, adding clinical considerations, conducting clinical and stakeholder review and finally updating content pre-publication. Innovative aspects of the guideline development process included synthesizing evidence for outcomes of tapering or stopping medication, and incorporating evidence for medication harm into the recommendation strength rating. Through the development of three deprescribing guidelines (for proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepine receptor agonists and antipsychotics) and associated decision-support algorithms, we were able to gradually hone the methodology; each guideline will be published separately. Conclusion Our methodology demonstrates the importance of searching for short and long-term outcomes, showing the benefits of deprescribing and studying patient preferences. This publication will support development of future deprescribing guidelines.

Atypical antipsychotics for insomnia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Observational evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine are increasingly being used to manage insomnia. This is concerning given the uncertain efficacy and potential adverse effects associated with these medications. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are to evaluate the benefits and adverse effects of atypical antipsychotics used specifically for insomnia. METHODS The methods used in this study are systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES The data were collected from PubMed; EMBASE; Cochrane Library; PsycINFO; grey literature; and the manufacturers of risperidone, quetiapine and olanzapine. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS Adult patients ≥18 years of age using atypical antipsychotics specifically for primary or co-morbid insomnia for ≥ 1 week were compared to those receiving active intervention or placebo. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles; extracted data; and conducted risk-of-bias analysis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was completed. RESULTS One double-blind randomized controlled trial (n = 13) met the eligibility criteria. Statistically significant differences were not observed from baseline between quetiapine and placebo after 2 weeks for primary insomnia in terms of total sleep time (mean difference (MD) 52.68 min, 95% CI -27.27 to 132.6), reduction in sleep latency (MD 72.44 min, 95% CI -2.65 to 147.5) or improved sleep satisfaction measured with a visual analogue scale out of 100 (MD 6.16, 95% CI -12.32 to 24.64), despite a trend towards improved sleep parameters. The study was rated as very low quality. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Very low quality evidence suggests that quetiapine does not significantly improve sleep parameters compared with placebo in primary insomnia, despite a trend towards clinical improvements. Atypical antipsychotics should be avoided in the first-line treatment of primary insomnia until further evidence is available.

Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses

BackgroundHypertension has been cited as the most common attributable risk factor for death worldwide, and in Canada more than one of every five adults had this diagnosis in 2007. In addition to different lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, there exist many pharmaco-therapies from different drug classes which can be used to lower blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of serious clinical outcomes. In moderate and severe cases, more than one agent may be used. The optimal mono- and combination therapies for mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension are unclear, and clinical guidelines provide different recommendations for first line therapy. The objective of this review is to explore the relative benefits and safety of different pharmacotherapies for management of non-diabetic patients with hypertension, whether of a mild or moderate to severe nature.Methods/DesignSearches involving MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. The outcomes of interest include myocardial infarction, stroke, incident diabetes, heart failure, overall and cardiovascular related death, and important side effects (cancers, depression, syncopal episodes/falls and sexual dysfunction). Randomized controlled trials will be sought. Two reviewers will independently screen relevant reviews, titles and abstracts resulting from the literature search, and also potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and quality will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through team discussion. Random effect pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses will be conducted where deemed appropriate. Analyses will be geared toward studying treatment of mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension separately.DiscussionOur systematic review results will assess the extent of currently available evidence for single agent and multi-agent pharmacotherapies in patients with mild, moderate and severe hypertension, and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important clinical outcomes for clinicians, decision makers and patients.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42013004459

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

BackgroundGuidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.ResultsOf the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.ConclusionsAlthough reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Assessing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and predicting patient outcomes in Ontario's older population: a population-based cohort study applying subsets of the STOPP/START and Beers' criteria in large health administrative databases

Introduction Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in older people and contribute significantly to emergency department (ED) visits, unplanned hospitalisations, healthcare costs, morbidity and mortality. Many ADEs are avoidable if attention is directed towards identifying and preventing inappropriate drug use and undesirable drug combinations. Tools exist to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in clinical settings, but they are underused. Applying PIP assessment tools to population-wide health administrative data could provide an opportunity to assess the impact of PIP on individual patients as well as on the healthcare system. This would open new possibilities for interventions to monitor and optimise medication management on a broader, population-level scale. Methods and analysis The aim of this study is to describe the occurrence of PIP in Ontarios older population (aged 65 years and older), and to assess the health outcomes and health system costs associated with PIP—more specifically, the association between PIP and the occurrence of ED visits, hospitalisations and death, and their related costs. This will be done within the framework of a population-based retrospective cohort study using Ontarios large health administrative and population databases. Eligible patients aged 66 years and older who were issued at least 1 prescription between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2014 (approximately 2 million patients) will be included. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Ottawa Health Services Network Ethical Review Board and from the Bruyère Research Institute Ethics Review Board. Dissemination will occur via publication, presentation at national and international conferences, and ongoing exchanges with regional, provincial and national stakeholders, including the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Trial registration number Registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT02555891).

What Do Primary Care Practitioners Want to Know? A Content Analysis of Questions Asked at the Point of Care

Introduction: Assessing physician needs to develop continuing medical education (CME) activities is an integral part of CME curriculum development. The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate the feasibility of identifying areas of perceived greatest needs for continuing medical education (CME) by using questions collected electronically at the point of care. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of the “Just‐in‐Time” (JIT) information librarian consultation service database of questions using quantitative content analysis methods. The original JIT project demonstrated the feasibility of a real‐time librarian service for answering questions asked by primary care clinicians at the point of care using a Web‐based platform or handheld device. Data were collected from 88 primary care practitioners in Ontario, Canada, from October 2005 to April 2006. Questions were answered in less than 15 minutes, enabling clinicians to use the answer during patient encounters. Results: Description of type and frequency of questions asked, including the organ system on which the questions focused, was produced using 2 classification systems, the “taxonomy of generic clinical questions” (TGCQ), and the International Classification for Primary Care version 2 (ICPC‐2). Of the original 1889 questions, 1871 (99.0%) were suitable for analysis. A total of 970 (52%) of questions related to therapy; of these, 671 (69.2%) addressed questions about drug therapy, representing 36% of all questions. Questions related to diagnosis (24.8%) and epidemiology (13.5%) were also common. Organ systems questions concerning musculoskeletal, endocrine, skin, cardiac, and digestive systems were asked more than other categories. Discussion: Questions collected at the point of care provide a valuable and unique source of information on the true learning needs of practicing clinicians. The TGCQ classification allowed us to show that a majority of questions had to do with treatment, particularly drug treatment, whereas the use of the ICPC‐2 classification illustrated the great variety of questions asked about the diverse conditions encountered in primary care. It is feasible to use electronically collected questions asked by primary care clinicians in clinical practice to categorize self‐identified knowledge and practice needs. This could be used to inform the development of future learning activities.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BackgroundThe methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials.The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to ‘quality’ assessment over time.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.ResultsOf 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.ConclusionsThe methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Do sugar-sweetened beverages cause adverse health outcomes in children? A systematic review protocol

BackgroundChronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, impose significant burden to public health. Most chronic diseases are associated with underlying preventable risk factors, such as elevated blood pressure, blood glucose, and lipids, physical inactivity, excessive sedentary behaviours, overweight and obesity, and tobacco usage. Sugar-sweetened beverages are known to be significant sources of additional caloric intake, and given recent attention to their contribution in the development of chronic diseases, a systematic review is warranted. We will assess whether the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in adults is associated with adverse health outcomes and what the potential moderating factors are.Methods/DesignOf interest are studies addressing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, taking a broad perspective. Both direct consumption studies as well as those evaluating interventions that influence consumption (e.g. school policy, educational) will be relevant. Non-specific or multi-faceted behavioural, educational, or policy interventions may also be included subject to the level of evidence that exists for the other interventions/exposures. Comparisons of interest and endpoints of interest are pre-specified. We will include randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted time series studies, controlled before-after studies, prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies, case-control studies, and nested case-control designs. The MEDLINE®, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ERIC, and PsycINFO® databases and grey literature sources will be searched. The processes for selecting studies, abstracting data, and resolving conflicts are described. We will assess risk of bias using design-specific tools. To determine sets of confounding variables that should be adjusted for, we have developed causal directed acyclic graphs and will use those to inform our risk of bias assessments. Meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate; parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity and effect modifiers are pre-specified. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPEROCRD42014009638