RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) used to treat children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) was published by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) in September 2011. Studies from 198 articles included in the review addressed the benefits and harms of DMARDs compared with conventional treatments and other DMARDs used to treat JIA. The review also incorporated studies comparing various clinical tools used for diagnosing JIA and measuring disease activity. Clinical outcome measures were analyzed to determine the most effective methods to measure disease state. The lack of current research for the treatment of JIA motivated AHRQ to contract with researchers to synthesize the available information with the intent of enabling health professionals to make evidence-based practice decisions for their patients. The review alsohighlights gaps in the research and areas that need to be addressed in the future. OBJECTIVES: To (a) educate health care practitioners on the findings from AHRQ's 2011 comparative effectiveness review on DMARDs used to treat children with JIA, (b) apply review findings to make diagnosis and treatment decisions in clinical practice, and (c) recognize limitations and gaps n the current research relating to the comparative benefits and harms of DMARDs for treatment of JIA. SUMMARY: JIA is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 300,000 children and adolescents in the United States.1 Initially manifesting with inflammation, swelling, pain, and stiffness of the joints, the disease as no apparent or known cause. JIA is a clinical diagnosis based on several actors including the number of affected joints and the involvement of other tissues (e.g., the skin and lymphoid tissues), and JIA has 7 categories: systemic-onset arthritis, oligoarthritis, rheumatoid-factor positive polyarthritis, rheumatoid-factor negative polyarthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and undifferentiated arthritis.2 Complete remission and resolution of disease activity are the ultimate treatment goals; however, there is no present cure. Inhibition of inflammation, prevention of joint damage, and promotion of a high level of functioning are the immediate goals of treatment. Even with treatment, patients with JIA continue to experience disease activity, joint destruction, suboptimal function, and impaired quality of life, all of which extend into adulthood.3 JIA can be severely debilitating and places a heavy physical and psychological burden on children and families affected by the disease. Methotrexate is a nonbiologic DMARD with an unknown mechanism of action. Methotrexate has been used for so long in the treatment of JIA that it is frequently considered a part of conventional treatment; the evidence shows that methotrexate is superior to conventional treatment with NSAIDsand/or intra-articular corticosteroids. The introduction of newer biologic DMARDs has spawned optimism that treatment will increasingly lead to improved outcomes for JIA, but the evidence is insufficient to support superiority over methotrexate. There is moderate evidence to support the claim that continued treatment from 4 months to 2 years with a biologic DMARD in children who have responded to a biologic DMARD decreases the risk of a flare. However, the safety of biologic DMARDs for long-term use has not been determined and may be associated with the developmentof cancer. The association between tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors and potential increased risk of lymphoma caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to place boxed warning labels on biologic DMARDs including etancercept, infliximab, and adalimumab. The effectiveness of the DMARDs appears to vary among categories of JIA and the treatment history of individual patients. Except for methotrexate, there is insufficient evidence to support selection of a specific drug or drug class over another in the treatment of JIA. The AHRQ review examines the scientific literature on DMARDs used in children with JIA in an effort to synthesize what is known about the subject, and the comprehensive review identifies important research gaps in the literature that need to be addressed. Only 8 studies (in 9 publications) were rated "good quality" by the AHRQ investigators.
Asunto(s)
Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Artritis Juvenil/tratamiento farmacológico , Antirreumáticos/efectos adversos , Antirreumáticos/farmacología , Artritis Juvenil/complicaciones , Niño , Investigación sobre la Eficacia Comparativa , Humanos , Estados Unidos , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(AHRQ) published a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of oral medications for type 2 diabetes. The review included studies on the benefits and risks of oral medications used for achieving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. AHRQ published an updated review in March 2011 that summarized the benefits and harms of medications (metformin,second-generation sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides,dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists), as monotherapy and in combination, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To (a) familiarize health care professionals with the methods and findings from AHRQ's 2011 comparative effectiveness review on medications for adults with type 2 diabetes, (b) encourage consideration of the clinical and managed care applications of the review findings, and(c) identify limitations and gaps in the existing research with respect to the benefits and risks of oral diabetes medications. SUMMARY: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major public health burden. Since the 2007 AHRQ systematic review of oral medications for type 2 diabetes, the FDA has approved several new drug classes. Therefore, in 2011, the original systematic review was updated with comparisons including the newer oral diabetes medications. The updated report expands beyond the scope of the original 2007 review by including comparisons of 2-drug combinations and the addition of more head-to-head comparisons, as well as additional adverse outcomes. A high strength of evidence showed that most medications were similarly efficacious at lowering hemoglobin A1c by about 1 absolute percentage point compared with baseline values. The addition of most oral medications to initial monotherapy further improved glycemiccontrol by lowering A1c by another 1 percentage point. The only exception was the DPP-4 inhibitor class, which did not lower A1c to the same extent as metformin when used as monotherapy. Overall, metformin was found to have a more favorable effect on body weight when compared with other medications. Two-drug combinations compared with each other demonstrated similar reductions in A1c levels. Metformin decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) relative to pioglitazone, sulfonylureas,and DPP-4 inhibitors. Sulfonylureas had a 4-fold higher risk of mild-to-moderate hypoglycemia compared with metformin alone, and, in combination with metformin, had more than a 5-fold increased risk compared with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione. Thiazolidinediones had an increased risk of congestive heart failure relative to sulfonylureas, and an increased risk for bone fractures relative to metformin. Diarrhea occurred more often for metformin users compared with thiazolidinedione users. Although the long-term risks and benefits of diabetes medications remain unclear, the evidence supports the use of metformin as a first-line agent.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/administración & dosificación , Administración Oral , Investigación sobre la Eficacia Comparativa , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Estados Unidos , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a comparative effectiveness review (CER) on the benefits and risks of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for treating essential hypertension in adults. The main findings indicated that the 2 classes of antihypertensive medications caused similar reductions in blood pressure, although higher rates of adverse events, especially cough, were reported by patients treated with ACEIs. In addition, the 2007 review indicated no treatment related differences in lipid levels, glycemic control, or progression of kidney disease among the agents. Since 2007, 39 relevant studies have been published that compare outcomes for adults treated with ACEIs versus ARBs or a drug in one of these 2 classes versus a direct renin inhibitor (DRI). To systematically analyze findings from the new research, AHRQ commissioned and, in June 2011, published an updated comparative effectiveness review on the benefits and risks of agents that target the renin-angiotensin- aldosterone system (RAAS), specifically ACEIs, ARBs, and DRIs. OBJECTIVES: To (a) familiarize health care professionals with the methods and findings from AHRQ's 2011 comparative effectiveness review on ACEIs, ARBs, and DRIs for adults with essential hypertension; (b) provide commentary and encourage consideration of the clinical and managed care applications of the review findings; and (c) identify limitations to the existing research on the benefits and risks of ACEIs, ARBs, and DRIs. SUMMARY: Consistent with the findings from AHRQ's 2007 report, the 2011 update indicated no overall differences in blood pressure control, mortality rates, and major cardiovascular events in patients treated with ACEIs versus ARBs. With a low strength of evidence, 2 studies reported a small significantly greater blood pressure reduction for patients treated with the DRI aliskiren versus the ACEI ramipril. Studies evaluating the DRI aliskiren versus ACEIs and ARBs on mortality and morbidity outcomes were relatively short, and few deaths or cardiovascular events occurred, resulting in insufficient evidence to discern differences. A random-effects meta-analysis of 23 RCTs comparing ACEIs and ARBs found no significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved successful blood pressure control on a single antihypertensive agent. Compared with ARBs and the DRI aliskiren, ACEIs were consistently associated with higher rates of cough. Withdrawals due to adverse events were modestly more frequent for patients receiving ACEI rather than ARBs or DRIs; this is consistent with the differential rates of cough. There was no evidence of differential effects of ACEIs, ARBs, or DRIs on the outcomes of lipids, renal outcomes, carbohydrate metabolism or diabetes, or left ventricular mass; however, there was not a high strength of evidence for any of these outcomes. Regarding the question of whether ACEIs, ARBs, or DRIs are associated with better outcomes in specific patient subgroups, the evidence was insufficient to reach firm conclusions.
Asunto(s)
Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Renina/antagonistas & inhibidores , Adulto , Bloqueadores del Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/efectos adversos , Antihipertensivos/efectos adversos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Hipertensión/complicaciones , Hipertensión/mortalidad , Hipertensión/fisiopatología , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects over 1 million people in the United States. Although the emergence of new medications has substantially improved treatment options and outcomes for patients with RA, the disease is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In addition, significant barriers to adherence characterize RA medication management. A reasonable approach to improving RA patient outcomes entails interprofessional, multidisciplinary models of care. Working with rheumatology specialists, RA multidisciplinary care teams may comprise case managers, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, physiatrists, orthopedists, or other health professionals. Experience and evidence have supported the value of interprofessional, coordinated care models for patients with various chronic diseases. However, potential drawbacks include the costs associated with implementation of such approaches, the extra time required for their administration, and the lack of incentives for clinicians to adopt collaborative care approaches. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the arguments and evidence for interprofessional, multidisciplinary care programs in RA. SUMMARY: Various multidisciplinary models of RA care have been described in the literature. Whereas the case for implementing such models is underscored by the chronic nature of the disease, by its comorbidities and complications, and by barriers to patient medication adherence, cost-effectiveness analyses to document benefits of coordinated interprofessional RA care are lacking. Most studies on interprofessional care in RA are relatively old and have been conducted outside of the United States. Nonetheless, the findings are still relevant and may shed light on potential avenues for the development of new models in this country.
Asunto(s)
Artritis Reumatoide/terapia , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/organización & administración , Humanos , Modelos Organizacionales , Grupo de Atención al Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the U.S. government has designated funding of several large-scale initiatives for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in health care. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 apportioned more than $1 billion to support CER programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). CER is generally defined as the undertaking of original research or systematic reviews of published literature in order to compare the benefits and risks of different approaches to preventing, diagnosing, or treating diseases. These approaches may include diagnostic tests, medications, medical devices, and surgeries. The overall goals of CER are to support informed health care decisions by patients, clinicians, payers, and policy makers and to apply its evidence to ultimately improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of health care. OBJECTIVES: To (a) provide managed care professionals with general definitions of CER, specifically as it is administered by AHRQ; (b) discuss the importance of CER to clinical and managed care pharmacists; and (c) summarize key methods and findings from AHRQ's 2007 comparative effectiveness review on therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SUMMARY: As supported by AHRQ, CER is conducted in order to synthesize comprehensive evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of treatment interventions. The findings from comparative effectiveness reviews can thus contribute to informing therapeutic strategies and treatment decisions. In 2007, a multitude of RA treatment options and studies motivated AHRQ to commission a systematic comparative effectiveness review. Conducted by investigators at the RTI-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center, the review included comparisons of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, synthetic DMARDs versus biologic agents, and various combination therapies. Head-to-head comparisons of synthetic DMARDs generally revealed no significant differences in long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, or in functional capacity or health-related quality of life. Two nonrandomized prospective cohort studies and 1 open-label effectiveness trial reported no differences in ACR20 and ACR50 response rates in patients treated with the tissue necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors etanercept and infliximab. Comparisons of TNF-alpha inhibitors generally indicated no significant differences in rates of adverse events, including serious infections, and no increases in rates over time. In comparisons of a biologic agent combined with methotrexate versus a biologic agent alone, combination therapies were generally associated with better clinical response rates and better outcomes of functional capacity and quality of life. The most common adverse events observed in studies on biologic agents were diarrhea, headache, nausea, rhinitis, injection site reactions, and upper respiratory tract infections.