Background. The optimal antithrombotic regimen after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of various anticoagulation strategies following surgical or transcatheter bAVR (TAVR). Methods. We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and gray literature through June 2017 for controlled clinical trials and cohort studies that directly compared different antithrombotic strategies in nonpregnant adults who had undergone bAVR. We assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Results. Of 4,554 titles reviewed, 6 clinical trials and 13 cohort studies met inclusion criteria. We found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding rates are similar between aspirin and warfarin after surgical bAVR. Observational data suggest lower mortality and thromboembolic events with aspirin combined with warfarin compared with aspirin alone after surgical bAVR, but the effect size is small and the combination is associated with a substantial increase in bleeding risk. We found insufficient evidence for all other treatment comparisons in surgical bAVR. In TAVR patients, we found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, stroke, and major cardiac events are similar between dual antiplatelet therapy and aspirin alone, though a nonsignificantly lower rate of bleeding occurred with aspirin alone. Conclusions. Treatment with warfarin or aspirin leads to similar outcomes after surgical bAVR. Combining aspirin with warfarin may lead to a small decrease in thromboembolism and mortality, but is accompanied by increased bleeding. For TAVR patients, aspirin is equivalent to dual antiplatelet therapy for reducing thromboembolism and mortality, with a possible decrease in bleeding. (C) 2019 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely used to treat ocular conditions but the benefits and harms of these treatments are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to compare the effects of aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, quality of life and ocular or systemic adverse events in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and central or branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO). We searched published and unpublished literature sources to February 2017 for randomised controlled trials and cohort or modelling studies reporting comparative costs in the USA. Two reviewers extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Of 17 included trials, none reported a clinically important difference (≥ 5 letters) in visual acuity gains between agents. Nine trials provide high-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD. Three trials provide moderate-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for DME. There was low-strength evidence of similar effects between aflibercept and ranibizumab for NVAMD, aflibercept and bevacizumab for RVO and all three agents for DME. There was insufficient evidence to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for RVO. Rates of ocular adverse events were low, and systemic harms were generally similar between groups, although 1 DME trial reported more arterial thrombotic events with ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Overall, no agent had a clear advantage over another for effectiveness or safety. Aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly less cost-effective than repackaged bevacizumab in two trials. Systematic review registration number: CRD42016034076.

Background Although pay-for-performance (P4P) strategies have been used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for over a decade, the long-term benefits of P4P are unclear. The use of P4P is further complicated by the increased use of non-VHA healthcare providers as part of the Veterans Choice Program. We conducted a systematic review and key informant interviews to better understand the effectiveness and potential unintended consequences of P4P, as well as the implementation factors and design features important in both VHA and non-VHA/community settings. Methods We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL through March 2017 and reviewed reference lists. We included trials and observational studies of P4P targeting Veteran health. Two investigators abstracted data and assessed study quality. We interviewed VHA stakeholders to gain further insight. Results The literature search yielded 1031 titles and abstracts, of which 30 studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. Twenty-five examined P4P in VHA settings and 5 in community settings. There was no strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of P4P in VHA settings. Interviews with 17 key informants were consistent with studies that identified the potential for overtreatment associated with performance metrics in the VHA. Key informants’ views on P4P in community settings included the need to develop relationships with providers and health systems with records of strong performance, to improve coordination by targeting documentation and data sharing processes, and to troubleshoot the limited impact of P4P among practices where Veterans make up a small fraction of the patient population. Discussion The evidence to support the effectiveness of P4P on Veteran health is limited. Key informants recognize the potential for unintended consequences, such as overtreatment in VHA settings, and suggest that implementation of P4P in the community focus on relationship building and target areas such as documentation and coordination of care.

The effectiveness of pay-for-performance programs, which provide financial rewards or penalties to providers or institutions according to performance on measures of quality, is unclear. This review...

Background: It is unclear as to which interventions are effective at improving medication adherence in individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. The goal of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence examining the effectiveness, harms, and costs of interventions to improve medication adherence in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of several electronic databases through January 2015 using a structured search strategy. Studies were included if they involved adult patients in general mental health settings, reported both measures of medication adherence and clinical outcomes, and were of sufficient methodological rigor. Studies were quality assessed and synthesized using established methods. Results: We idented 24 studies that met inclusion criteria. Overall, 20 studies addressed interventions in patients with psychotic spectrum disorders. These interventions varied widely, with generally mixed findings contributing to low or insufficient strength of evidence; studies involving family members and technology interventions were the most consistently associated with a positive effect; however, the strength of the evidence was low because of intervention heterogeneity. The evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of interventions in patients with bipolar disorder. Conclusions: In individuals with psychotic spectrum disorders, interventions with family members or technology had the most consistent positive effect on adherence, although replication with objective adherence measures along with evaluation of harms and costs is needed. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about interventions in individuals with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND:Cannabis is increasingly available for the treatment of chronic pain, yet its efficacy remains uncertain. PURPOSE:To review the benefits of plant-based cannabis preparations for treating chronic pain in adults and the harms of cannabis use in chronic pain and general adult populations. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and several other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION:Intervention trials and observational studies, published in English, involving adults using plant-based cannabis preparations that reported pain, quality of life, or adverse effect outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION:Two investigators independently abstracted study characteristics and assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS:From 27 chronic pain trials, there is low-strength evidence that cannabis alleviates neuropathic pain but insufficient evidence in other pain populations. According to 11 systematic reviews and 32 primary studies, harms in general population studies include increased risk for motor vehicle accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment. Although adverse pulmonary effects were not seen in younger populations, evidence on most other long-term physical harms, in heavy or long-term cannabis users, or in older populations is insufficient. LIMITATION:Few methodologically rigorous trials; the cannabis formulations studied may not reflect commercially available products; and limited applicability to older, chronically ill populations and patients who use cannabis heavily. CONCLUSION:Limited evidence suggests that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, but insufficient evidence exists for other types of chronic pain. Among general populations, limited evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk for adverse mental health effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

Objective: Suicide rates in veteran and military populations in the United States are high. This article reviews studies of the accuracy of methods to identify individuals at increased risk of suicide and the effectiveness and adverse effects of health care interventions relevant to U.S. veteran and military populations in reducing suicide and suicide attempts. Methods: Trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews relevant to U.S. veterans and military personnel were identified in searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and Cochrane databases (January 1, 2008, to September 11, 2015), on Web sites, and in reference lists. Investigators extracted and confirmed data and dual-rated risk of bias for included studies. Results: Nineteen studies evaluated accuracy of risk assessment methods, including models using retrospective electronic records data and clinician- or patient-rated instruments. Most methods demonstrated sensitivity ≥80% or area-under-the-curve values ≥.70 in single studies, including two studies based on electronic records of veterans and military personnel, but specificity varied. Suicide rates were reduced in six of eight observational studies of population-level interventions. Only two of ten trials of individual-level psychotherapy reported statistically significant differences between treatment and usual care. Conclusions: Risk assessment methods have been shown to be sensitive predictors of suicide and suicide attempts, but the frequency of false positives limits their clinical utility. Research to refine these methods and examine clinical applications is needed. Studies of suicide prevention interventions are inconclusive; trials of population-level interventions and promising therapies are required to support their clinical use.

BACKGROUND:Goals for improving the quality of care for all Veterans and eliminating health disparities are outlined in the Veterans Health Administration Blueprint for Excellence, but the degree to which disparities in utilization, health outcomes, and quality of care affect Veterans is not well understood.OBJECTIVES:To characterize the research on health care disparities in the Veterans Health Administration by means of a map of the evidence.RESEARCH DESIGN:We conducted a systematic search for research studies published from 2006 to February 2016 in MEDLINE and other data sources. We included studies of Veteran populations that examined disparities in 3 outcome categories: utilization, quality of health care, and patient health.MEASURES:We abstracted data on study design, setting, population, clinical area, outcomes, mediators, and presence of disparity for each outcome category. We grouped the data by population characteristics including race, disability status, mental illness, demographics (age, era of service, rural location, and distance from care), sex identity, socioeconomic status, and homelessness, and created maps illustrating the evidence.RESULTS:We reviewed 4249 citations and abstracted data from 351 studies which met inclusion criteria. Studies examining disparities by race/ethnicity comprised by far the vast majority of the literature, followed by studies examining disparities by sex, and mental health condition. Very few studies examined disparities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity or homelessness. Disparities findings vary widely by population and outcome.CONCLUSIONS:Our evidence maps provide a "lay of the land" and identify important gaps in knowledge about health disparities experienced by different Veteran populations.

This systematic review summarizes evidence regarding the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis for treating posttraumatic stress disorder in adults and describes several ongoing studies that m...

Background: Recent guidelines recommend a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of less than 150 mm Hg for adults aged 60 years or older, but the balance of benefits and harms is unclear in light of newer evidence.Purpose: To systematically review the effects of more versus less intensive BP control in older adults.Data Sources: Multiple databases through January 2015 and MEDLINE to September 2016.Study Selection: 21 randomized, controlled trials comparing BP targets or treatment intensity, and 3 observational studies that assessed harms.Data Extraction: Two investigators extracted data, assessed study quality, and graded the evidence using published criteria.Data Synthesis: Nine trials provided high-strength evidence that BP control to less than 150/90 mm Hg reduces mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98]), cardiac events (RR, 0.77 [CI, 0.68 to 0.89]), and stroke (RR, 0.74 [CI, 0.65 to 0.84]). Six trials yielded low-to moderate-strength evidence that lower targets (= 140/85 mm Hg) are associated with marginally significant decreases in cardiac events (RR, 0.82 [CI, 0.64 to 1.00]) and deaths (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.69 to 1.06]). Low-to moderate-strength evidence showed that lower BP targets do not increase falls or cognitive impairment.Limitation: Data relevant to frail elderly adults and the effect of multimorbidity are limited.Conclusion: Treatment to at least current guideline standards for BP (< 150/90 mm Hg) substantially improves health outcomes in older adults. There is less consistent evidence, largely from 1 trial targeting SBP less than 120 mm Hg, that lower BP targets are beneficial for high-risk patients. Lower BP targets did not increase falls or cognitive decline but are associated with hypotension, syncope, and greater medication burden.