Pasqualina Santaguida

Effectiveness of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine for Treating Dementia: Evidence Review for a Clinical Practice Guideline

Dementias have become a major public health concern because of their increasing prevalence, chronicity, caregiver burden, and high personal and financial costs of care. Currently, there are no cures for most dementias. For the most common types (Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, and mixed dementias), clinicians often prescribe pharmacotherapy to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression. The pharmacotherapeutic agents available to treat problems associated with dementias (for example, psychosis) have varying levels of evidence to support their efficacy and have been reviewed elsewhere (1). Some drugs, although not approved, are being used in populations with mild cognitive impairment; in such patients, the rate of conversion to dementias is 0.3 to 2.3 per 100 person-years (2). Currently, 5 drugs have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for managing dementias. The cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and tacrine) degrade acetylcholinesterase, allowing levels of acetylcholine (a neurotransmitter critical to the neurons involved in cognition) to increase. Memantine partially blocks the N-methyl-d-aspartic acid receptor and prevents excess stimulation of the glutamate system, which influences memory and learning. Although FDA approval specifies use of these 5 drugs for Alzheimer disease, in clinical practice the drugs are also prescribed for other dementias. This review systematically evaluates the evidence for the effectiveness of these 5 drugs in improving outcomes in cognition, global function, behavior, and quality of life among patients with dementia. Methods Search and Selection We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, AgeLine, and PsycINFO for relevant evidence published in English from January 1986 through November 2006. We also reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved papers. All populations with major dementias (including Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, and Parkinson dementia) and mild cognitive impairment were included. Only parallel randomized, controlled trials that compared a cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine with placebo or another drug were eligible. We excluded crossover trials because of potential bias due to period effects or period-by-treatment interaction. Our content-expert panel reached consensus and established that eligible studies also had to have a minimum modified Jadad score of 3 of 5 (original scale), indicating moderate study quality. Study outcomes primarily encompassed 4 broad domains: cognition, global function, behavior, and quality of life (including activities of daily living [ADLs] and caregiver burden). We classified most clinical outcomes within these 4 domains; other outcomes were rate of institutionalization, mortality, or adverse events. Two independent reviewers evaluated each study for eligibility. Appendix Table 1 describes the eligibility criteria in detail. Appendix Table 1. Detailed Eligibility Criteria for Systematic Review This systematic review was done in the context of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualityfunded review that evaluated 92 pharmacologic agents for dementias (1). Data Abstraction and Quality Assessment Two independent reviewers abstracted data from and assessed the quality of all studies that met the eligibility criteria. The modified Jadad scale (which includes additional domains that concern collection of adverse events, description of statistical analysis, and reporting of eligibility criteria) (3) and a checklist for the quality of reporting of adverse events were used to evaluate methodological quality; the latter measures included questions on frequency of reporting harms, withdrawals, and method of collection (1). Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis Evaluation of benefit was based on reported changes in the principal outcome within the domains of interest. Although we did not restrict studies by the type of outcome, we did anticipate that some outcomes would be more commonly used in these drug studies. We searched the literature to establish the magnitude of change considered to be clinically important in key outcomes. Specifically, within the domain of cognition, we considered the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)consisting of the cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), noncognitive subscale (ADAS-noncog), and total ADAS score (ADAS-tot)the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (or the standardized MMSE version), and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) to be commonly used measures that have established properties and are scored by a trained evaluator or clinician. The ADAS-cog is a validated psychometric assessment scale for the domains of attention, memory, orientation, language ability, and praxis in Alzheimer disease (4). Scores range from 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater impairment. A change of 4 points is considered clinically significant for patients with mild to moderate dementia, but the ADAS-cog is not uniformly sensitive to change over the course of the disease (5). The ADAS-noncog evaluates behavioral changes. The MMSE is a widely used measure of cognitive function validated in dementia populations (6). Scores range from 0 to 30, with lower scores indicating greater impairment. The MMSE measures orientation, attention, recall, and language, but it does not evaluate mood or disordered forms of thinking. The SIB is a validated measure of cognitive function for moderate to severe dementias in the areas of orientation, attention, language, and praxis (7). Scores on the SIB range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater deficits. There are no established clinically important differences for the MMSE or SIB. For the domain of global function, a commonly used outcome is the clinician-based impression of change (CIBIC), with caregiver input (CIBIC-plus) and other modified versions (New York UniversityCIBIC-plus, clinicians global impression of change [CGIC], Alzheimers Disease Cooperative Study CGIC, and clinician interviewbased impression). The CIBIC-plus is a validated measure of change that requires a clinician to judge global patient function in 4 areas: general, cognitive, behavioral, and ADLs (8). This measure is scored on a 7-point scale, with 1 reflecting marked improvement, 4 indicating no change, and 7 denoting marked worsening. Because the CIBIC-plus is a global rating by clinicians, any change in score is considered clinically significant. Most other measures commonly used in clinical settings do not have established effect sizes that reflect clinically important differences. To evaluate adverse effects, we used a standardized instrument that assessed rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects, the method (active vs. passive and standardized vs. nonstandardized approaches) and frequency of collection of harms, and the definition and collection of serious and severe harms. A priori, we selected specific events (nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, accidental injury, agitation, urinary disorder, serious adverse events) and expressed these as a percentage for each study. Where 2 or more studies provided sufficient information, we calculated the summary estimate for the specific adverse event evaluated. We used standard meta-analytic techniques to estimate effect sizes for each drug in studies with the same outcomes. The effect measure selected varied according to the manner in which the outcome was reported and included change scores or, for dichotomous data, relative risks (RRs). Reasonableness of pooling was assessed on clinical and biological grounds in terms of clinical heterogeneity (drugs, similarity of populations, and outcomes); therefore, meta-analysis was not appropriate for all outcomes. We did not include summary estimates when studies provided only end point scores. Similarly, we excluded studies that did not provide a measure of variance for outcomes when computing summary estimates. When meta-analyses were undertaken, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was selected as the pooled estimate instead of the standardized mean difference. When only the proportions of patients whose condition improved or worsened were reported, the RR was used as a measure of the summary effect size. In all meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used; tests for statistical heterogeneity were based on the chi-square statistic and the I 2 statistic. In some cases (912), estimates of mean changes in the study outcomes used for the meta-analyses were based on best estimates derived from figures in the citations. Results Figure 1 shows the process of study selection. Of the papers in the larger review, 127 evaluated donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, tacrine, and memantine. We excluded 22 of these that scored less than 3 on the Jadad scale, 8 that were crossover trials, and 1 that administered tacrine to both study groups. The Appendix lists all excluded studies. The remaining 96 reports included 59 unique study cohorts. Seventy-five different outcomes were measured across the domains of interest. Cognition and global function were the domains from which efficacy was most frequently determined. Figure 1. Study flow diagram. The term companion refers to multiple reports from a single study. The authors considered the first published study as the main paper and referred to all associated reports as companion papers. DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; ICD = International Classification of Diseases; NINCDS = National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke. Donepezil versus Placebo Twenty-four unique studies (9, 10, 1233) from 34 different reports evaluating donepezil versus placebo (or vitamin E) were eligible for this systematic review. Three additional studies (4 reports) directly compared donepezil with galantamine (34, 35) and rivastigmine (36, 37) and are discussed in the section on compara

ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program

OBJECTIVE This article is to establish recommendations for conducting quantitative synthesis, or meta-analysis, using study-level data in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) for the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We focused on recurrent issues in the EPC program and the recommendations were developed using group discussion and consensus based on current knowledge in the literature. RESULTS We first discussed considerations for deciding whether to combine studies, followed by discussions on indirect comparison and incorporation of indirect evidence. Then, we described our recommendations on choosing effect measures and statistical models, giving special attention to combining studies with rare events; and on testing and exploring heterogeneity. Finally, we briefly presented recommendations on combining studies of mixed design and on sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION Quantitative synthesis should be conducted in a transparent and consistent way. Inclusion of multiple alternative interventions in CERs increases the complexity of quantitative synthesis, whereas the basic issues in quantitative synthesis remain crucial considerations in quantitative synthesis for a CER. We will cover more issues in future versions and update and improve recommendations with the accumulation of new research to advance the goal for transparency and consistency.

AHRQ Series Paper 4: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program

Comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) are systematic reviews that evaluate evidence on alternative interventions to help clinicians, policy makers, and patients make informed treatment choices. Reviews should assess harms and benefits to provide balanced assessments of alternative interventions. Identifying important harms of treatment and quantifying the magnitude of any risks require CER authors to consider a broad range of data sources, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. This may require evaluation of unpublished data in addition to published reports. Appropriate synthesis of harms data must also consider issues related to evaluation of rare or uncommon events, assessments of equivalence or noninferiority, and use of indirect comparisons. This article presents guidance for evaluating harms when conducting and reporting CERs. We include suggestions for prioritizing harms to be evaluated, use of terminology related to reporting of harms, selection of sources of evidence on harms, assessment of risk of bias (quality) of harms reporting, synthesis of evidence on harms, and reporting of evidence on harms.

Systematic Review: Family History in Risk Assessment for Common Diseases

Wilson and associates reviewed evidence about the potential beneficial and harmful effects of routinely collecting family history information in primary care settings. They also reviewed studies th...

The current state of cancer family history collection tools in primary care: a systematic review

Systematic collection of family history is a prerequisite for identifying genetic risk. This study reviewed tools applicable to the primary care assessment of family history of breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched for publications. All primary study designs were included. Characteristics of the studies, the family history collection tools, and the setting were evaluated. Of 40 eligible studies, 18 relevant family history tools were identified, with 11 developed for use in primary care. Most collected information on more than one cancer and on affected relatives used self-administered questionnaires and paper-based formats. Eleven tools had been evaluated relative to current practice, demonstrating 46–78% improvement in data recording over family history recording in patient charts and 75–100% agreement with structured genetic interviews. Few tools have been developed specifically for primary care settings. The few that have been evaluated performed well. The very limited evidence, which depends in part on extrapolation from studies in settings other than primary care, suggests that systematic tools may add significant family health information compared with current primary care practice. The effect of their use on health outcomes has not been evaluated.

PRISMA harms checklist: Improving harms reporting in systematic reviews

Introduction For any health intervention, accurate knowledge of both benefits and harms is needed. Systematic reviews often compound poor reporting of harms in primary studies by failing to report harms or doing so inadequately. While the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) helps systematic review authors ensure complete and transparent reporting, it is focused mainly on efficacy. Thus, a PRISMA harms checklist has been developed to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, promoting a more balanced assessment of benefits and harms. Methods A development strategy, endorsed by the EQUATOR Network and existing reporting guidelines (including the PRISMA statement, PRISMA for abstracts, and PRISMA for protocols), was used. After the development of a draft checklist of items, a modified Delphi process was initiated. The Delphi consisted of three rounds of electronic feedback followed by an in-person meeting. Results The PRISMA harms checklist contains four essential reporting elements to be added to the original PRISMA statement to improve harms reporting in reviews. These are reported in the title (“Specifically mention ‘harms’ or other related terms, or the harm of interest in the review”), synthesis of results (“Specify how zero events were handled, if relevant”), study characteristics (“Define each harm addressed, how it was ascertained (eg, patient report, active search), and over what time period”), and synthesis of results (“Describe any assessment of possible causality”). Additional guidance regarding existing PRISMA items was developed to demonstrate relevance when synthesising information about harms. Conclusion The PRISMA harms checklist identifies a minimal set of items to be reported when reviewing adverse events. This guideline extension is intended to improve harms reporting in systematic reviews, whether harms are a primary or secondary outcome.

Chapter 8: meta-analysis of test performance when there is a "gold standard".

Synthesizing information on test performance metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios is often an important part of a systematic review of a medical test. Because many metrics of test performance are of interest, the meta-analysis of medical tests is more complex than the meta-analysis of interventions or associations. Sometimes, a helpful way to summarize medical test studies is to provide a “summary point”, a summary sensitivity and a summary specificity. Other times, when the sensitivity or specificity estimates vary widely or when the test threshold varies, it is more helpful to synthesize data using a “summary line” that describes how the average sensitivity changes with the average specificity. Choosing the most helpful summary is subjective, and in some cases both summaries provide meaningful and complementary information. Because sensitivity and specificity are not independent across studies, the meta-analysis of medical tests is fundamentaly a multivariate problem, and should be addressed with multivariate methods. More complex analyses are needed if studies report results at multiple thresholds for positive tests. At the same time, quantitative analyses are used to explore and explain any observed dissimilarity (heterogeneity) in the results of the examined studies. This can be performed in the context of proper (multivariate) meta-regressions.

A systematic review of BNP and NT-proBNP in the management of heart failure: overview and methods

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) levels are increased in persons with heart failure (HF); low levels of these peptides rule out HF. We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the use of BNP and NT-proBNP in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for HF. We also examined the biological variation of these peptides in persons with and without HF. We searched Medline, Embase, AMED, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL for English-language studies published between January 1989 and June 2012. Supplemental searches involved the gray literature and the reference lists of included studies. Trained reviewers used standardized forms to screen articles for inclusion in the review and to extract data from included papers. We examined the risk of bias with QUADAS-2 for diagnosis studies, the Hayden criteria for prognosis studies, and the Jadad scale for treatment studies. We assessed the strength of evidence in four domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision) for the diagnosis and treatment studies. Results were reported as narrative syntheses. Additional meta-analyses were conducted for the diagnosis studies. Three hundred ten articles passed through screening and were included in the review. One hundred four articles applied to diagnostic accuracy, 190 papers pertained to prognosis, and nine articles addressed BNP- or NT-proBNP-guided treatment. Each individual paper in this series reports, summarizes, and discusses the evidence regarding diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment.

Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Failed Antidepressant Treatment Response in Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymia, and Subthreshold Depression in Adults:

Objective: This systematic review critically evaluated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating adults with major depressive disorder, dysthymia, or subthreshold or minor depression for recommendations following inadequate response to first-line treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Method: Searches for CPGs (January 2004 to November 2014) in English included 7 bibliographic databases and grey literature sources using CPG and depression as the keywords. Two raters selected CPGs on depression with a national scope. Data extraction included definitions of adequate response and recommended treatment options. Two raters assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results: From 46,908 citations, 3167 were screened at full text. From these 21 CPG were applicable to adults in primary care and outpatient settings. Five CPGs consider patients with dysthymia or subthreshold or minor depression. None provides recommendations for those who do not respond to first-line SSRI treatment. For adults with MDD, most CPGs do not define an “inadequate response” or provide specific suggestions regarding how to choose alternative medications when switching to an alternative antidepressant. There is variability between CPGs in recommending combination strategies. AGREE II ratings for stakeholder involvement in CPG development, editorial independence, and rigor of development are domains in which depression guidelines are often less robust. Conclusions: About half of patients with depression require second-line treatment to achieve remission. Consistency and clarity in guidelines for second-line treatment of depression are therefore important for clinicians but lacking in most current guidelines. This may reflect a paucity of primary studies upon which to base conclusions.