Montori, Víctor M.

Objectives: The objective was to assess the effect of menopausal hormonal therapy (MHT) on all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) from inception until August 2013. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of more than 6 months of duration comparing MHT with no treatment. Pairs of independent reviewers selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the random-effects model. Results: We included 43 RCTs at moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed no effect on mortality (RR 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94–1.05]), regardless of MHT type or history of preexisting heart disease. No association was found between MHT and cardiac death (RR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87–1.23]) or stroke (RR 1.49 [95% CI 0.95–2.31]). Estrogen plus progesterone use was associated with a likely increase in breast cancer mortality (RR 1.96 [95% CI 0.98–3.94]), whereas estrogen use was not. MHT use was not associated with mortality of other types of cancer. In 5 trials, MHT was likely started at a younger age: 2 RCTs with mean age less than 60 and 3 RCTs with MHT started less than 10 years after menopause. Meta-analysis of these 5 RCTs showed a reduction of mortality with MHT (RR 0.70 [95% CI 0.52–0.95]). Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that MHT does not affect the risk of death from all causes, cardiac death and death from stroke or cancer. These data may be used to support clinical and policy deliberations about the role of MHT in the care of symptomatic postmenopausal women.

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.

AbstractAbstract In a randomized trial of 130 surgical patients, use of a decision aid consisting of laminated cards with pros and cons of continuing smoking, attempting temporary abstinence, or attempting to quit smoking improved measures of decisional quality but did not change perioperative tobacco use behavior. Background: Decision aids can increase patient involvement in decision-making about health care. The study goal was to develop and test a decision aid for use by clinicians in discussion options for changing smoking behavior before and after elective surgery. Methods: In formative work, a decision aid was designed to facilitate patient–clinician discussion regarding three options: continue smoking, attempt a period of temporary abstinence, and attempt to quit smoking for good. A randomized, two-group pilot study was then conducted in smokers evaluated in preparation for elective surgery in a preoperative clinic to test the hypothesis that the decision aid would improve measures of decisional quality compared with usual care. Results: The final decision aid consisted of three laminated cards. The front of each card included a colorful graphic describing each choice; the reverse including two to three pros and cons for each decision, a simple graphic illustrating the effects of smoking on the body, and a motivational phrase. In the randomized trial of 130 patients, the decision aid significantly ( P < 0.05) improved measures of decisional quality and patient involvement in decision making (Cohen’s d effect sizes of 0.76 and 1.20 for the Decisional Conflict Scale and Observing PatienT involvement In decisiON-making scale, respectively). However, the decision aid did not affect any aspect of perioperative smoking behavior, including the distribution of or adherence to choices. Conclusions: Although the use of a decision aid to facilitate clinician–patient discussions regarding tobacco use around the time of surgery substantially improved measures of decisional quality, it alone did not change perioperative tobacco use behavior.