Timothy J Wilt’s research while affiliated with Phoenix VA Health Care System and other places

Background: Postmenopausal women commonly experience vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Purpose: To evaluate effectiveness and harms of vaginal estrogen, nonestrogen hormone therapies, and vaginal moisturizers for treatment of GSM symptoms. Data sources: Medline, Embase, and CINAHL through 11 December 2023. Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 8 weeks' duration enrolling postmenopausal women with at least 1 GSM symptom and reporting effectiveness or harms of hormonal interventions or vaginal moisturizers. Data extraction: Risk of bias and data extraction were performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed by one reviewer and verified by consensus. Data synthesis: From 11 993 citations, 46 RCTs evaluating vaginal estrogen (k = 22), nonestrogen hormones (k = 16), vaginal moisturizers (k = 4), or multiple interventions (k = 4) were identified. Variation in populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or no treatment, vaginal estrogen may improve vulvovaginal dryness, dyspareunia, most bothersome symptom, and treatment satisfaction. Compared with placebo, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) may improve dryness, dyspareunia, and distress, bother, or interference from genitourinary symptoms; oral ospemifene may improve dryness, dyspareunia, and treatment satisfaction; and vaginal moisturizers may improve dryness (all low COE). Vaginal testosterone, systemic DHEA, vaginal oxytocin, and oral raloxifene or bazedoxifene may provide no benefit (low COE) or had uncertain effects (very low COE). Although studies did not report frequent serious harms, reporting was limited by short-duration studies that were insufficiently powered to evaluate infrequent serious harms. Limitations: Most studies were 12 weeks or less in duration and used heterogeneous GSM diagnostic criteria and outcome measures. Few studies enrolled women with a history of cancer. Conclusion: Vaginal estrogen, vaginal DHEA, oral ospemifene, and vaginal moisturizers may improve some GSM symptoms in the short term. Few long-term data exist on efficacy, comparative effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of GSM treatments. Primary funding source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).

Background: Women seeking nonhormonal interventions for vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) may seek out complementary and alternative medicine or therapies (CAMs). Purpose: To summarize published evidence of CAMs for GSM. Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through 11 December 2023. Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 8 weeks or more in duration that evaluated the effectiveness or harms of CAMs for postmenopausal women with GSM and reported 1 or more outcomes of interest, with sample sizes of 20 or more participants randomly assigned per group. Data extraction: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Data synthesis: An evidence map approach was used to organize and describe trials. Studies were organized by type of intervention, with narrative summaries for population, study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Fifty-seven trials were identified that investigated 39 unique interventions. Studies were typically small (n < 200), and most were done in Iran (k = 24) or other parts of Asia (k = 9). Few trials evaluated similar combinations of populations, interventions, comparators, or outcomes. Most studies (k = 44) examined natural products (that is, herbal or botanical supplements and vitamins), whereas fewer reported on mind and body practices (k = 6) or educational programs (k = 7). Most studies reported 1 or 2 GSM symptoms, mainly sexual (k = 44) or vulvovaginal (k = 30). Tools used to measure outcomes varied widely. Most trials reported on adverse events (k = 33). Limitations: Only English-language studies were used. Effect estimates, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were not assessed. Conclusion: There is a large and heterogeneous literature of CAM interventions for GSM. Trials were small, and few were done in North America. Standardized population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes reporting in future RCTs are needed. Primary funding source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).

Purpose To assess the effectiveness and harms of initial treatment strategies for stages I-III anal squamous cell cancer (SCC). Methods We searched Medline®, Embase®, and CENTRAL®, between January 1, 2000- March 2024, for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions comparing initial treatment strategies. Individual study risk of bias (RoB) and overall strength of evidence (SOE) were evaluated for a prespecified outcome list using standardized methods. Results We identified 33 eligible studies and extracted data. Six were deemed low/moderate RoB. Compared with radiotherapy (RT) alone, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with 5-fluorouracil (FU) and mitomycin C (MMC) probably shows a benefit in locoregional failure (LRF), disease-specific (DSS), and colostomy-free survival (CFS) (moderate SOE) yet may result in greater overall and acute hematologic toxicity, with no difference in late harms (low SOE). CRT with 5FU+MMC may show a benefit in LRF, DSS, and CFS rates compared with 5FU alone (low SOE). CRT with 5FU+cisplatin vs 5FU+MMC probably results in no differences in several effectiveness outcomes or overall acute or late harms, and probably increases hematologic toxicity with MMC (moderate SOE). Compared with CRT using capecitabine+MMC, CRT with capecitabine+MMC+paclitaxel may improve OS, DSS, and CFS, yet cause more acute harms (low SOE). Evidence was insufficient for remaining comparisons. Conclusions CRT with 5FU+MMC or 5FU+cisplatin is likely more effective yet incurs greater acute hematologic toxicity than RT alone or single-agent CRT. Adding paclitaxel to capecitabine+MMC may increase treatment efficacy and toxicity. Evidence is insufficient comparing post-treatment surveillance strategies and patient-reported outcomes, highlighting research opportunities.

Introduction Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man’s lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners. Methods and analysis We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: ‘low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1’, ‘low-risk prostate neoplasm’ or ‘low-risk prostate lesion’. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy). Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ Trial registration numbers Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).

Fazekas T, Shim SR, Basile G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10:745-754. 38576242.

Real-time clinical care, policy, and research decisions need real-time evidence synthesis. However, as we found during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is challenging to rapidly address key clinical and policy questions through rigorous, relevant, and usable evidence. Our objective is to present three exemplar cases of rapid evidence synthesis products from the Veterans Healthcare Administration Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) and, in the context of these examples, outline ESP products, challenges, and lessons learned. We faced challenges in (1) balancing scientific rigor with the speed in which evidence synthesis was needed, (2) sorting through rapidly evolving large bodies of evidence, and (3) assessing the impact of evidence synthesis products on clinical care, policy, and research. We found solutions in (1) engaging stakeholders early, (2) utilizing artificial intelligence capabilities, (3) building infrastructure to establish living reviews, and (4) planning for dissemination to maximize impact.

Purpose: Two randomized trials (SPCG4 and PIVOT) have compared surgery to conservative management for localized prostate cancer. The applicability of these trials to contemporary practice remains uncertain. We aimed to develop an individualized prediction model for prostate cancer mortality comparing immediate surgery at a high-volume center to active surveillance. Materials and methods: We determined whether the relative risk of prostate cancer mortality with surgery vs observation varied by baseline risk. We then used various estimates of relative risk to estimate 15-year mortality with and without surgery using, as a predictor, risk of biochemical recurrence calculated from a model. Results: We saw no evidence that relative risk varied by baseline risk, supporting the use of a constant relative risk. Compared with observation, surgery was associated with negligible benefit for patients with Grade Group (GG) 1 disease (0.2% mortality reduction at 15 years) and small benefit for patients with GG2 with lower PSA and stage (≤5% mortality reduction). Benefit was greater (6%-9%) for patients with GG3 or GG4 though still modest, but effect estimates varied widely depending on choice of hazard ratio for surgery (6%-36% absolute risk reduction). Conclusions: Surgery should be avoided for men with low-risk (GG1) prostate cancer and for many men with GG2 disease. Surgical benefits are greater in men with higher-risk disease. Integration of findings with a life expectancy model will allow patients to make informed treatment decisions given their oncologic risk, risk of death from other causes, and estimated effects of surgery.

Background: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. Study selection: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. Data extraction: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. Data synthesis: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). Limitations: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. Conclusion: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. Primary funding source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).