Search

Background & Aims There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy. Methods We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost. Results After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics. Conclusions On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Comparative effectiveness data pertaining to competing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests do not exist but are necessary to guide clinical decision making and policy. Objective To perform a comparative synthesis of clinical outcomes studies evaluating the effects of competing tests on CRC-related mortality. Design Traditional and network meta-analyses. Two reviewers identified studies evaluating the effect of guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), or colonoscopy on CRC-related mortality. Interventions gFOBT, FS, colonoscopy. Main Outcome Measurements Traditional meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of each modality on CRC mortality. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of screening modalities. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Traditional meta-analysis revealed that, compared with no intervention, colonoscopy reduced CRC-related mortality by 57% (relative risk [RR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.58), whereas FS reduced CRC-related mortality by 40% (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78), and gFOBT reduced CRC-related mortality by 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88). NMA demonstrated nonsignificant trends favoring colonoscopy over FS (RR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.11) and FS over gFOBT (RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.09) for reducing CRC-related deaths. NMA-based simulations, however, revealed that colonoscopy has a 94% probability of being the most effective test for reducing CRC mortality and a 99% probability of being most effective when the analysis is restricted to screening studies. Limitations Randomized trials and observational studies were combined within the same analysis. Conclusion Clinical outcomes studies demonstrate that gFOBT, FS, and colonoscopy are all effective in reducing CRC-related mortality. Network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Optimal care of patients with venous thromboembolism requires the input of patient preferences into clinical decision-making. However, the availability and impact of decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in care of venous thromboembolism is not well known. Objectives To assess the availability, clinical impact and outcomes associated with the use of decision aids in patients with or at risk for venous thromboembolism. Patients/methods A systematic review of the literature was performed exploring the use of decision aids in patients with venous thromboembolism. Criteria for primary inclusion required use of patient values clarification in the decision aid. A secondary review without the requirement of a patient values clarification was performed to be more inclusive. The data was summarized such that knowledge gaps and opportunities for enquiry were identified. Results The primary review identified one study that explored the decision to extend anticoagulation in patients with a recent venous thromboembolism beyond the stipulated 3-month duration. The secondary review identified an additional study exploring the decision to undergo computer tomography testing in patients at low risk for pulmonary embolism in an emergency department setting. Both studies were of modest quality given a lack of control group for comparison analysis. Conclusions Despite numerous calls to increase use of shared decision-making, a paucity of data exists to help patients engage in the treatment decisions for venous thromboembolism. Future studies of additional VTE clinical decisions with longer-term clinical outcomes appear necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]