OBJECTIVES: To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.
RESULTS: Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.
BACKGROUND: eHealth potentially enhances quality of care and may reduce health care costs. However, a review of systematic reviews published in 2010 concluded that high-quality evidence on the benefits of eHealth interventions was still lacking.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases to analyze whether, and to what possible extent, the outcome of recent research supports or differs from previous conclusions.
METHODS: Literature searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions published between August 2009 and December 2012. Articles were screened for relevance based on preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Citations of residual articles were screened for additional literature. Included papers were critically appraised using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement before data were extracted. Based on conclusions drawn by the authors of the included articles, reviews and meta-analyses were divided into 1 of 3 groups: suitable, promising, or limited evidence on effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. Cases of uncertainty were resolved by consensus discussion. Effect sizes were extracted from papers that included a meta-analysis. To compare our results with previous findings, a trend analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Our literature searches yielded 31 eligible reviews, of which 20 (65%) reported on costs. Seven papers (23%) concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective, 13 (42%) underlined that evidence is promising, and others found limited or inconsistent proof. Methodological quality of the included reviews and meta-analyses was generally considered high. Trend analysis showed a considerable accumulation of literature on eHealth. However, a similar percentage of papers concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective or evidence is at least promising (65% vs 62%). Reviews focusing primarily on children or family caregivers still remained scarce. Although a pooled (subgroup) analysis of aggregate data from randomized studies was performed in a higher percentage of more recently published reviews (45% vs 27%), data on economic outcome measures were less frequently reported (65% vs 85%).
CONCLUSIONS: The number of reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases has increased considerably in recent years. Most articles show eHealth is effective/cost-effective or at least suggest evidence is promising, which is consistent with previous findings. Although many researchers advocate larger, well-designed, controlled studies, we believe attention should be given to the development and evaluation of strategies to implement effective/cost-effective eHealth initiatives in daily practice, rather than to further strengthen current evidence.
ABSTRACT: Overall the evidence base was large; we identified 43 systematic reviews covering hundreds of studies and thousands of participants. Evidence clustered around particular outcomes, interventions and populations. Outcomes The vast majority of evidence is on quality of life and prevention outcomes Evidence on satisfaction with services and safeguarding is severely limited Interventions Physical activity interventions are those most widely evaluated in systematic reviews, followed by occupational therapy interventions No evidence is available on some key social care interventions, e.g. direct payments Populations The majority of evidence concerns people with long-term conditions (e.g. dementia, cancer, stroke) There is much less evidence on older people or people with mental health problems Evidence on learning or physical disabilities is extremely limited. Interventions with evidence of positive effect Evidence of positive impact was found for seven of the 14 social care interventions examined in the included reviews: physical activity, occupational therapy, supported employment, lay/peer support, hip protectors, assistive devices and personal assistance. Evidence on the scale of positive impacts was available for five of these interventions. Larger positive impacts resulted from integrated employment and mental health support and from hip protectors. Both larger and smaller impacts were found across eight physical activity reviews and two occupational therapy reviews. Smaller impacts resulted from a lay-led self-management intervention. Interventions with evidence of harm Two reviews contained evidence that interventions shown to be effective for some populations could potentially cause harm to vulnerable social care recipients. Tai chi, though effective for older people in general, was found to increase the rate of falls among frail older people. Exercise was found to have positive impacts on people exercising for rehabilitation after a period of ill health, but a negative impact on the psychological QoL of people exercising to manage their condition. Interventions not shown to be effective There were seven interventions for which no conclusive positive evidence was found. All available evidence on the following interventions was inconclusive: structured communication, safeguarding training, home hazard assessment. All available evidence on case management and social support interventions showed no evidence of difference between intervention and control groups. Of two reviews on alternative therapies, one found no evidence of difference between groups and another found inconclusive evidence. Inconclusive evidence was also found for some interventions shown to be positive in other reviews: physical activity, occupational therapy, personal assistance, assistive devices, lay/peer support, supported employment. No evidence of difference was found in some reviews for interventions which were found in other reviews to have positive effects: physical activity, assistive devices, lay/peer support, supported employment. On balance, the overall evidence suggests that physical activity interventions and occupational therapy are effective. What are the implications? Implications for policy and practice The greatest portion of evidence included in this review of reviews is about physical activity – evidence suggests that these types of interventions can be effective for people with long-term conditions and non-frail older people and may address both quality of life and delay or reduce the need for social care support. Moreover, although physical activity interventions may typically be regarded as not within the remit of social care, they may be relatively cheap and easy to implement, and therefore worth considering. More complex and perhaps more recognisably social care interventions such as occupational therapy are also supported by the review-level literature. The large and medium effects resulting from integrated mental health and employment services also underscore the value of complex social care interventions. Moreover, the integrated nature of this particular intervention suggests that the current drive in the UK to integrate health and social services (Department of Health 2011) may prove to be successful. Wider evaluation of integrated services is certainly warranted. A last key message for policymakers and practitioners is the need to recognise the influence of contextual factors on the success of social care interventions, in particular the need for safety measures when implementing social care interventions with particularly vulnerable groups. Implications for research The great breadth and extent of evidence contained within this review of reviews is clear. However, assessing the available review-level evidence across the whole of social care also makes clear that there are significant gaps in the evidence examining impact on ASCOF outcomes. There is severely limited evidence on satisfaction with services and safeguarding outcomes in existing systematic reviews There is little use of quality of life measures designed to evaluate the impact of social care interventions included in reviews There is limited review-level evidence on many social care interventions, and none for some key intervention types There is scant evidence on key populations groups – people with physical and learning disabilities There is no review-level evidence on cost-effectiveness. How did we get these results? The research involved identifying and analysing evidence from systematic reviews to answer the following research questions: Which social care interventions can effectively improve outcomes for services users in the four outcome domains set out in the ASCOF: quality of life, prevention, satisfaction and safeguarding? How much impact do effective social care interventions have on ASCOF outcomes?
BACKGROUND: Interventions aimed at behavior change are increasingly being delivered over the Internet. Although research on intervention effectiveness has been widely conducted, their true public health impact as indicated by reach, effectiveness, and use is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to (1) review the current literature on online prevention aimed at lifestyle behaviors, and (2) identify research gaps regarding reach, effectiveness, and use.
METHODS: A systematic search in PubMed revealed relevant literature published between 2005 and 2012 on Internet-delivered behavior change interventions aimed at dietary behaviors, physical activity, alcohol use, smoking, and condom use. Our search yielded 41 eligible reviews, which were analyzed in terms of reach, effectiveness, and use according to the RE-AIM framework.
RESULTS: According to health priorities, interventions are largely targeted at weight-related behaviors, such as physical activity and dietary behavior. Evaluations are predominantly effect-focused and overall effects are small, variable, and not sustainable. Determinants of effectiveness are unclear; effectiveness cannot yet be unambiguously attributed to isolated elements. Actual reach of interventions is undiversified, mostly reaching participants who are female, highly educated, white, and living in high-income countries. One of the most substantial problems in online prevention is the low use of the interventions, a phenomenon seen across all behavior domains.
CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed on effective elements instead of effective interventions, with special attention to long-term effectiveness. The reach and use of interventions need more scientific input to increase the public health impact of Internet-delivered interventions.
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions (MSCs) are widely prevalent in present-day society, with resultant high healthcare costs and substantial negative effects on patient health and quality of life. The main aim of this overview was to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of exercise therapy (ET) on pain and physical function for patients with MSCs. In addition, the evidence for the effect of ET on disease pathogenesis, and whether particular components of exercise programs are associated with the size of the treatment effects, was also explored.
METHODS: We included four common conditions: fibromyalgia (FM), low back pain (LBP), neck pain (NP), and shoulder pain (SP), and four specific musculoskeletal diseases: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and osteoporosis (OP). We first included Cochrane reviews with the most recent update being January 2007 or later, and then searched for non-Cochrane reviews published after this date. Pain and physical functioning were selected as primary outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified 9 reviews, comprising a total of 224 trials and 24,059 patients. In addition, one review addressing the effect of exercise on pathogenesis was included. Overall, we found solid evidence supporting ET in the management of MSCs, but there were substantial differences in the level of research evidence between the included diagnostic groups. The standardized mean differences for knee OA, LBP, FM, and SP varied between 0.30 and 0.65 and were significantly in favor of exercise for both pain and function. For NP, hip OA, RA, and AS, the effect estimates were generally smaller and not always significant. There was little or no evidence that ET can influence disease pathogenesis. The only exception was for osteoporosis, where there was evidence that ET increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women, but no significant effects were found for clinically relevant outcomes (fractures). For LBP and knee OA, there was evidence suggesting that the treatment effect increases with the number of exercise sessions.
CONCLUSIONS: There is empirical evidence that ET has beneficial clinical effects for most MSCs. Except for osteoporosis, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of the ways in which ET influences disease mechanisms.
BACKGROUND: Effective implementation strategies are needed to optimize advancements in the fields of cancer diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care. We conducted a review of systematic reviews to better understand the evidentiary base of implementation strategies in cancer control.
METHODS: Using three databases, we conducted a search and identified English-language systematic reviews published between 2005 and 2010 that targeted consumer, professional, organizational, regulatory, or financial interventions, tested exclusively or partially in a cancer context (primary focus); generic or non-cancer-specific reviews were also considered. Data were extracted, appraised, and analyzed by members of the research team, and research ideas to advance the field were proposed.
RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews providing 41 summaries of evidence on 19 unique interventions comprised the evidence base. AMSTAR quality ratings ranged between 2 and 10. Team members rated most of the interventions as promising and in need of further research, and 64 research ideas were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: While many interventions show promise of effectiveness in the cancer-control context, few reviews were able to conclude definitively in favor of or against a specific intervention. We discuss the complexity of implementation research and offer suggestions to advance the science in this area.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a review of reviews on the impacts and costs of telemedicine services.
METHODS: A review of systematic reviews of telemedicine interventions was conducted. Interventions included all e-health interventions, information and communication technologies for communication in health care, Internet based interventions for diagnosis and treatments, and social care if important part of health care and in collaboration with health care for patients with chronic conditions were considered relevant. Each potentially relevant systematic review was assessed in full text by one member of an external expert team, using a revised check list from EPOC (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group) to assess quality. Qualitative analysis of the included reviews was informed by principles of realist review.
RESULTS: In total 1593 titles/abstracts were identified. Following quality assessment, the review included 80 heterogeneous systematic reviews. Twenty-one reviews concluded that telemedicine is effective, 18 found that evidence is promising but incomplete and others that evidence is limited and inconsistent. Emerging themes are the particularly problematic nature of economic analyses of telemedicine, the benefits of telemedicine for patients, and telemedicine as complex and ongoing collaborative achievements in unpredictable processes.
CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of new topic areas in this dynamic field is notable and reviewers are starting to explore new questions beyond those of clinical and cost-effectiveness. Reviewers point to a continuing need for larger studies of telemedicine as controlled interventions, and more focus on patients' perspectives, economic analyses and on telemedicine innovations as complex processes and ongoing collaborative achievements. Formative assessments are emerging as an area of interest.
To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.
METHODS:
PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.
RESULTS:
Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS:
This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.
