Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective

BACKGROUND: Supported self-management has been recommended by asthma guidelines for three decades; improving current suboptimal implementation will require commitment from professionals, patients and healthcare organisations. The Practical Systematic Review of Self-Management Support (PRISMS) meta-review and Reducing Care Utilisation through Self-management Interventions (RECURSIVE) health economic review were commissioned to provide a systematic overview of supported self-management to inform implementation. We sought to investigate if supported asthma self-management reduces use of healthcare resources and improves asthma control; for which target groups it works; and which components and contextual factors contribute to effectiveness. Finally, we investigated the costs to healthcare services of providing supported self-management. METHODS: We undertook a meta-review (systematic overview) of systematic reviews updated with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the review search dates, and health economic meta-analysis of RCTs. Twelve electronic databases were searched in 2012 (updated in 2015; pre-publication update January 2017) for systematic reviews reporting RCTs (and update RCTs) evaluating supported asthma self-management. We assessed the quality of included studies and undertook a meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 27 systematic reviews (n = 244 RCTs) and 13 update RCTs revealed that supported self-management can reduce hospitalisations, accident and emergency attendances and unscheduled consultations, and improve markers of control and quality of life for people with asthma across a range of cultural, demographic and healthcare settings. Core components are patient education, provision of an action plan and regular professional review. Self-management is most effective when delivered in the context of proactive long-term condition management. The total cost (n = 24 RCTs) of providing self-management support is offset by a reduction in hospitalisations and accident and emergency visits (standard mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from a total of 270 RCTs confirms that supported self-management for asthma can reduce unscheduled care and improve asthma control, can be delivered effectively for diverse demographic and cultural groups, is applicable in a broad range of clinical settings, and does not significantly increase total healthcare costs. Informed by this comprehensive synthesis of the literature, clinicians, patient-interest groups, policy-makers and providers of healthcare services should prioritise provision of supported self-management for people with asthma as a core component of routine care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: RECURSIVE: PROSPERO CRD42012002694 ; PRISMS: PROSPERO does not register meta-reviews

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

Background Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults. Search methods For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries. Selection criteria We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks’ duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created ’Summary of findings’ tables. Main results We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal. In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence). For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderatequality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%). Authors’ conclusions Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review