Patient navigation programs are generally community-based service delivery interventions (such as collaborative care, coordinated care, and case management) intended to enhance timely access to the diagnosis and treatment of individuals with chronic conditions, including dementia. Overall, for coordinated care compared with usual care, clinical findings were either mixed or there were no between-group differences in terms of hospitalization, institutionalization, or nursing home admissions; quality of life; or symptoms. For coordinated care compared with usual care, there was no statistically significant between-group difference in mortality. However, there was evidence of improvement in terms of behaviour with coordinated care compared with usual care. According to 1 economic evaluation, for patients with dementia, with the majority having no or mild cognitive impairment, collaborative dementia care management provided increased benefit (quality-adjusted life-years gained) at decreased cost. Three guidelines were identified that provided recommendations for care coordination. One guideline recommends coordinated care for people living with dementia that is organized by a single-named health or social care professional. The second guideline recommends the use of digital technology to enhance care coordination in persons with mental illness. The third guideline recommends coordinated care for people with delirium, dementia, and depression. Findings need to be interpreted in the light of limitations (such as lack of information in the study populations’ type of dementia, mixed findings in outcomes, and lack of information beyond 24 months of follow-up).

The information in this document is intended to help Canadian health care decision-makers, health care professionals, health systems leaders, and policy-makers make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. While patients and others may access this document, the document is made available for informational purposes only and no representations or warranties are made with respect to its fitness for any particular purpose. The information in this document should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or as a substitute for the application of clinical judgment in respect of the care of a particular patient or other professional judgment in any decision-making process. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) does not endorse any information, drugs, therapies, treatments, products, processes, or services. While care has been taken to ensure that the information prepared by CADTH in this document is accurate, complete, and up-to-date as at the applicable date the material was first published by CADTH, CADTH does not make any guarantees to that effect. CADTH does not guarantee and is not responsible for the quality, currency, propriety, accuracy, or reasonableness of any statements, information, or conclusions contained in any third-party materials used in preparing this document. The views and opinions of third parties published in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of CADTH. CADTH is not responsible for any errors, omissions, injury, loss, or damage arising from or relating to the use (or misuse) of any information, statements, or conclusions contained in or implied by the contents of this document or any of the source materials. This document may contain links to third-party websites. CADTH does not have control over the content of such sites. Use of third-party sites is governed by the third-party website owners' own terms and conditions set out for such sites. CADTH does not make any guarantee with respect to any information contained on such third-party sites and CADTH is not responsible for any injury, loss, or damage suffered as a result of using such third-party sites. CADTH has no responsibility for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by third-party sites. Subject to the aforementioned limitations, the views expressed herein are those of CADTH and do not necessarily represent the views of Canada's federal, provincial, or territorial governmentsor any third party supplier of information. This document is prepared and intended for use in the context of the Canadian health care system. The use of this document outside of Canada is done so at the user's own risk.

Comparative evidence supports that droperidol is as effective as haloperidol and olanzapine for the sedation of adult patients with uncontrolled aggression, anxiety, or violent behaviour in acute care settings, and a limited quantity of evidence supports the superiority of droperidol over ziprasidone and lorazepam monotherapies. There are no statistically significant differences in adverse event frequency or severity in adult patients treated with droperidol compared with haloperidol or olanzapine. Guidelines published in 2015 support the safety and efficacy of droperidol treatment for agitation based on high-quality relevant evidence. These guidelines found insufficient evidence to support electrocardiogram or telemetry monitoring of patients who were administered less than 2.5 mg of droperidol.

Transarterial radioembolization using yttrium-90 (90Y) microspheres is a therapeutic option for patients with intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, including those with recurrent or inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. Overall, the evidence suggests that patients treated with 90Y-based transarterial radioembolization may experience no difference in overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumour response when compared to patients who received transarterial chemoembolization therapies or systemic treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Patients treated with transarterial radioembolization generally experienced similar rates of adverse events compared to those treated with transarterial chemoembolization, although there were some instances where treatment with transarterial radioembolization led to increased or decreased risks of specific adverse events. The comparative safety of transarterial radioembolization versus systemic treatment with sorafenib was unclear as the included studies did not statistically compare the risks of experiencing adverse events. Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of 90Y microspheres for treating hepatocellular carcinoma is conflicting. Three economic evaluations suggest treatment with transarterial radioembolization is likely to be cost-effective or dominant — less costly and more effective — compared to transarterial chemoembolization or systemic therapies, while a single economic study suggested treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib is most likely to be cost-effective or dominant compared to transarterial radioembolization.

Two overviews of systematic reviews, 4 systematic reviews, and 9 randomized controlled trials were identified comparing codeine or codeine combination drugs with placebo and/or other drugs in the management of acute dental pain. As compared to placebo, codeine was generally shown to offer a benefit to patients experiencing acute dental pain. When compared to other drugs and/or drug combinations — particularly those that were acetaminophen- or ibuprofen-based — codeine generally was not found to be as clinically effective for the management of acute dental pain, with the potential exception of tooth sensitivity following dental bleaching, where 1 study reported that acetaminophen plus codeine was statistically significantly superior to ibuprofen or placebo. Increased adverse events were observed with codeine-containing drugs as compared to other drugs and/or placebo. Studies included in this review demonstrated both strengths and limitations, some of which limit the extent to which the findings from these studies were relevant to this report and/or can be generalized.