Lisa R. Shugarman

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of surgery for weight loss and the resulting improvement in health-related outcomes. PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of effectiveness and adverse events associated with surgical treatment of obesity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and systematic reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials; observational studies; and case series reporting on surgical treatment of obesity. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about study design, procedure, population, comorbid conditions, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: The authors assessed 147 studies. Of these, 89 contributed to the weight loss analysis, 134 contributed to the mortality analysis, and 128 contributed to the complications analysis. The authors identified 1 large, matched cohort analysis that reported greater weight loss with surgery than with medical treatment in individuals with an average body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or greater. Surgery resulted in a weight loss of 20 to 30 kg, which was maintained for up to 10 years and was accompanied by improvements in some comorbid conditions. For BMIs of 35 to 39 kg/m2, data from case series strongly support superiority of surgery but cannot be considered conclusive. Gastric bypass procedures result in more weight loss than gastroplasty. Bariatric procedures in current use (gastric bypass, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, vertical banded gastroplasty, and biliopancreatic diversion and switch) have been performed with an overall mortality rate of less than 1%. Adverse events occur in about 20% of cases. A laparoscopic approach results in fewer wound complications than an open approach. LIMITATIONS: Only a few controlled trials were available for analysis. Heterogeneity was seen among studies, and publication bias is possible. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is more effective than nonsurgical treatment for weight loss and control of some comorbid conditions in patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater. More data are needed to determine the efficacy of surgery relative to nonsurgical therapy for less severely obese people. Procedures differ in efficacy and incidence of complications.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increase in obesity, pharmacologic treatments for weight loss have become more numerous and more commonly used. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of weight loss medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other medications that have been used for weight loss. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, experts in the field, and unpublished information. STUDY SELECTION: Up-to-date meta-analyses of sibutramine, phentermine, and diethylpropion were identified. The authors assessed in detail 50 studies of orlistat, 13 studies of fluoxetine, 5 studies of bupropion, 9 studies of topiramate, and 1 study each of sertraline and zonisamide. Meta-analysis was performed for all medications except sertraline, zonisamide, and fluoxetine, which are summarized narratively. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors abstracted information about study design, intervention, co-interventions, population, outcomes, and methodologic quality, as well as weight loss and adverse events from controlled trials of medication. DATA SYNTHESIS: All pooled weight loss values are reported relative to placebo. A meta-analysis of sibutramine reported a mean difference in weight loss of 4.45 kg (95% CI, 3.62 to 5.29 kg) at 12 months. In the meta-analysis of orlistat, the estimate of the mean weight loss for orlistat-treated patients was 2.89 kg (CI, 2.27 to 3.51 kg) at 12 months. A recent meta-analysis of phentermine and diethylpropion reported pooled mean differences in weight loss at 6 months of 3.6 kg (CI, 0.6 to 6.0 kg) for phentermine-treated patients and 3.0 kg (CI, -1.6 to 11.5 kg) for diethylpropion-treated patients. Weight loss in fluoxetine studies ranged from 14.5 kg of weight lost to 0.4 kg of weight gained at 12 or more months. For bupropion, 2.77 kg (CI, 1.1 to 4.5 kg) of weight was lost at 6 to 12 months. Weight loss due to topiramate at 6 months was 6.5% (CI, 4.8% to 8.3%) of pretreatment weight. With one exception, long-term studies of health outcomes were lacking. Significant side effects that varied by drug were reported. LIMITATIONS: Publication bias may exist despite a comprehensive search and despite the lack of statistical evidence for the existence of bias. Evidence of heterogeneity was observed for all meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Sibutramine, orlistat, phentermine, probably diethylpropion, bupropion, probably fluoxetine, and topiramate promote modest weight loss when given along with recommendations for diet. Sibutramine and orlistat are the 2 most-studied drugs.

BACKGROUND: Many persons and their families are burdened by serious chronic illness in late life. How to best support quality of life is an important consideration for care. PURPOSE: To assess evidence about interventions to improve palliative and end-of-life care. DATA SOURCES: English-language citations (January 1990 to November 2005) from MEDLINE, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care bibliography, and November 2005 to January 2007 updates from expert reviews and literature surveillance. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews that addressed "end of life," including terminal illness (for example, advanced cancer) and chronic, eventually fatal illness with ambiguous prognosis (for example, advanced dementia), and intervention studies (randomized and nonrandomized designs) that addressed pain, dyspnea, depression, advance care planning, continuity, and caregiving. DATA EXTRACTION: Single reviewers screened 24,423 titles to find 6381 relevant abstracts and reviewed 1274 articles in detail to identify 33 high-quality systematic reviews and 89 relevant intervention studies. They synthesized the evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) classification. DATA SYNTHESIS: Strong evidence supports treating cancer pain with opioids, nonsteroidals, radionuclides, and radiotherapy; dyspnea from chronic lung disease with short-term opioids; and cancer-associated depression with psychotherapy, tricyclics, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Strong evidence supports multi component interventions to improve continuity in heart failure. Moderate evidence supports advance care planning led by skilled facilitators who engage key decision makers and interventions to alleviate caregiver burden. Weak evidence addresses cancer-related dyspnea management, and no evidence addresses noncancer pain, symptomatic dyspnea management in advanced heart failure, or short-acting antidepressants in terminal illness. No direct evidence addresses improving continuity for patients with dementia. Evidence was weak for improving caregiver burdens in cancer and was absent for heart failure. LIMITATIONS: Variable literature indexing for advanced chronic illness and end of life limited the comprehensiveness of searches, and heterogeneity was too great to do meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Strong to moderate evidence supports interventions to improve important aspects of end-of-life care. Future research should quantify these effects and address the generalizability of insights across the conditions and settings of the last part of life. Many critical issues lack high-quality evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify psychometrically sound measures of outcomes in end-of-life care and to characterize their use in intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: English language articles from 1990 to November 2005 describing measures with published psychometric data and intervention studies of end-of-life care. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of end-of-life care literature. EXTRACTION METHODS: Two reviewers organized identified measures into 10 major domains. Eight reviewers extracted and characterized measures from intervention studies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 24,423 citations, we extracted 200 articles that described 261 measures, accepting 99 measures. In addition to 35 measures recommended in a prior systematic review, we identified an additional 64 measures of the end-of-life experience. The most robust measures were in the areas of symptoms, quality of life, and satisfaction; significant gaps existed in continuity of care, advance care planning, spirituality, and caregiver well-being. We also reviewed 84 intervention studies in which 135 patient-centered outcomes were assessed by 97 separate measures. Of these, 80 were used only once and only eight measures were used in more than two studies. CONCLUSIONS: In general, most measures have not undergone rigorous development and testing. Measure development in end-of-life care should focus on areas with identified gaps, and testing should be done to facilitate comparability across the care settings, populations, and clinical conditions. Intervention research should use robust measures that adhere to these standards.

The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to better understand the conceptualization of satisfaction with end-of-life care and the effectiveness of palliative care interventions on this outcome. Data sources included Medline and the Database of Reviews of Effects. The review included relevant qualitative studies and intervention studies using satisfaction as an outcome from 1990 to 2005. Reviewing 24,423 citations yielded 21 relevant qualitative studies, four systematic reviews, and eight additional intervention studies. The qualitative literature described the domains of accessibility and coordination; competence, including symptom management; communication and education; emotional support and personalization of care; and support of patients' decision-making. For collaboration and consultation interventions, eight of 13 studies showed a significant effect on satisfaction. A meta-analysis found that palliative care and hospice teams improved satisfaction, although most studies did not include satisfaction as an outcome. For other types of interventions, only two of six showed a significant effect. For heart failure coordination of care, only seven of 32 studies addressed this as an outcome; two of the three that compared satisfaction between groups showed a significant difference. Evaluations used many different measures, only one of which was designed for the end of life. In conclusion, researchers have conceptualized satisfaction in palliative care, and different types of palliative care interventions can improve satisfaction, but it is often not included as an outcome. More focus on these satisfaction elements might improve the effectiveness of end-of-life interventions and their evaluation.