No abstract

Purpose of Review• To assess the effectiveness of drug and nondrug therapies for treating acute mania or depression symptoms and preventing relapse in adults with bipolar disorder (BD) diagnoses, including bipolar I disorder (BD-I), bipolar II disorder (BD-II), and other types. Key Messages• Acute mania treatment: Lithium, asenapine, cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone may modestly improve acute mania symptoms in adults with BD-I. Participants on atypical antipsychotics, except for quetiapine, reported more extrapyramidal symptoms, and those on olanzapine reported more weight gain, compared with placebo. • Maintenance treatment: Lithium may prevent relapse into acute episodes in adults with BD-I. • Depression treatment: Evidence was insufficient for drug treatments for depressive episodes in adults with BD-I and BD-II. • For adults with any BD type, cognitive behavioral therapy may be no better than other psychotherapies for improving acute bipolar symptoms and systematic/collaborative care may be no better than other behavioral therapies for preventing relapse of any acute symptoms. • Stronger conclusions were prevented by high rates of participants dropping out.This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies, may not be stated or implied. This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.

Assuming missing values were smoking, multiple contests appear to dominate a single contest from a societal perspective. Funding agencies seeking to promote population health by funding a Quit-and-Win contest in a university setting should strongly consider offering multiple consecutive contests. Further research is needed to evaluate multiple contests compared to no contest.

Purpose. As part of a clinical trial comparing the utility of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC) for post colorectal cancer resection surveillance, we explored the diagnostic yield and costs of a strategy of CTC followed by OC if a polyp is observed (abbreviated CTC_S), versus OC 1 year following curative bowel resection, using the detection of actionable polyps on OC as the criterion. Methods. Using data from 231 patients who underwent same-day CTC followed by OC, we created a decision tree that outlined the choices and outcomes at 1-year clinical follow-up. Colorectal polyp prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity of CTC were compared with five exemplary studies and meta-analyses. Detection criteria were derived for 6 mm or 10 mm polyps. OC was the gold standard. Costs were gleaned from cataloging components of the cases at the principal investigator's institution. Analyses included marginal cost of the OC strategy to detect additional actionable polyps and number of polyps missed per 10,000 patients. Results. At our prevalence of 0.156 for 6 mm (0.043 10 mm), CTC_S would miss 779 6 mm actionable polyps per 10,000 patients (10 mm: 173 per 10,000). Cost to detect an additional 6 mm polyp in this cohort is $5,700 (10 mm: $28,000). Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that any improvement in performance characteristics would raise the cost of OC to detect more actionable polyps. Similar results were seen using Medicare costs, or when literature values were used for performance characteristics. Conclusion. At an action threshold of 6 mm, OC costs at least $5,700 per extra polyp detected relative to CTC_S in patients undergoing surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery, on the order of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios found for other clinical problems involving short-term events.

Objective: To determine the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of family caregivers to learn care strategies for persons living with dementia (PLwD). Design: Randomized clinical trial. Setting: Community-dwelling PLwD and their caregivers (dyads) in Maryland and Washington, DC. Participants: 250 dyads. Intervention: Tailored Activity Program (TAP) compared to attention control. TAP provides activities tailored to the PLwD and instructs caregivers in their use. Measurement: At baseline, 3 and 6 months, caregivers were asked their WTP per session for an 8-session 3-month in-home nonpharmacologic intervention to address behavioral symptoms and functional dependence. Results: At baseline, 3 and 6 months, caregivers assigned to TAP were willing to pay $26.10/session (95%CI:$20.42, $33.00), $28.70 (95%CI:$19.73, $39.30), and $22.79 (95%CI: $16.64, $30.09), respectively; attention control caregivers were willing to pay $37.90/session (95%CI: $27.10, $52.02), $30.92 (95%CI: $23.44, $40.94), $27.44 (95%CI: $20.82, $35.34), respectively. The difference in baseline to 3 and 6 months change in WTP between TAP and the attention control was $9.58 (95%CI: −$5.00, $25.47) and $7.15 (95%CI: −$5.72, $21.81). The difference between TAP and attention control in change in the proportion of caregivers willing to pay something from baseline to 3 and 6 months was −12% (95%CI: −28%, −5%) and −7% (95%CI:−25%, −11%), respectively. The difference in change in WTP, among caregivers willing to pay something, between TAP and attention control from baseline to 3 and 6 months was $17.93 (95%CI: $0.22, $38.30) and $11.81 (95%CI: −$2.57, $28.17). Conclusions: Family caregivers are willing to pay more for an intervention immediately following participation in a program similar to which they were asked to value.