Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major public health burden. Since the 2007 AHRQ systematic review of oral medications for type 2 diabetes, the FDA has approved several new drug classes. Therefore, in 2011, the original systematic review was updated with comparisons including the newer oral diabetes medications. The updated report expands beyond the scope of the original 2007 review by including comparisons of 2-drug combinations and the addition of more head-to-head comparisons, as well as additional adverse outcomes. A high strength of evidence showed that most medications were similarly efficacious at lowering hemoglobin A1c by about 1 absolute percentage point compared with baseline values. The addition of most oral medications to initial monotherapy further improved glycemiccontrol by lowering A1c by another 1 percentage point. The only exception was the DPP-4 inhibitor class, which did not lower A1c to the same extent as metformin when used as monotherapy. Overall, metformin was found to have a more favorable effect on body weight when compared with other medications. Two-drug combinations compared with each other demonstrated similar reductions in A1c levels. Metformin decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) relative to pioglitazone, sulfonylureas,and DPP-4 inhibitors. Sulfonylureas had a 4-fold higher risk of mild-to-moderate hypoglycemia compared with metformin alone, and, in combination with metformin, had more than a 5-fold increased risk compared with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione. Thiazolidinediones had an increased risk of congestive heart failure relative to sulfonylureas, and an increased risk for bone fractures relative to metformin. Diarrhea occurred more often for metformin users compared with thiazolidinedione users. Although the long-term risks and benefits of diabetes medications remain unclear, the evidence supports the use of metformin as a first-line agent.

he also served as Chief Resident. Dr. Powers is a board-certified practicing general internist. He is also a research scientist in primary care at the Durham VA Center for Health Services Research. His research interests include hypertension management, quality measurement, health literacy, medical decision making, and telemedicine interventions. His work has been supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a KL2 award from the National Institutes of Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Powers' research is currently supported through a VA HSR&D career development award. In addition, his work has been published in journals including the

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects over 1 million people in the United States. Although the emergence of new medications has substantially improved treatment options and outcomes for patients with RA, the disease is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In addition, significant barriers to adherence characterize RA medication management. A reasonable approach to improving RA patient outcomes entails interprofessional, multidisciplinary models of care. Working with rheumatology specialists, RA multidisciplinary care teams may comprise case managers, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, physiatrists, orthopedists, or other health professionals. Experience and evidence have supported the value of interprofessional, coordinated care models for patients with various chronic diseases. However, potential drawbacks include the costs associated with implementation of such approaches, the extra time required for their administration, and the lack of incentives for clinicians to adopt collaborative care approaches.

JIA is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting approximately 300,000 children and adolescents in the United States.1 Initially manifesting with inflammation, swelling, pain, and stiffness of the joints, the disease as no apparent or known cause. JIA is a clinical diagnosis based on several actors including the number of affected joints and the involvement of other tissues (e.g., the skin and lymphoid tissues), and JIA has 7 categories: systemic-onset arthritis, oligoarthritis, rheumatoid-factor positive polyarthritis, rheumatoid-factor negative polyarthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and undifferentiated arthritis.2 Complete remission and resolution of disease activity are the ultimate treatment goals; however, there is no present cure. Inhibition of inflammation, prevention of joint damage, and promotion of a high level of functioning are the immediate goals of treatment. Even with treatment, patients with JIA continue to experience disease activity, joint destruction, suboptimal function, and impaired quality of life, all of which extend into adulthood.3 JIA can be severely debilitating and places a heavy physical and psychological burden on children and families affected by the disease. Methotrexate is a nonbiologic DMARD with an unknown mechanism of action. Methotrexate has been used for so long in the treatment of JIA that it is frequently considered a part of conventional treatment; the evidence shows that methotrexate is superior to conventional treatment with NSAIDsand/or intra-articular corticosteroids. The introduction of newer biologic DMARDs has spawned optimism that treatment will increasingly lead to improved outcomes for JIA, but the evidence is insufficient to support superiority over methotrexate. There is moderate evidence to support the claim that continued treatment from 4 months to 2 years with a biologic DMARD in children who have responded to a biologic DMARD decreases the risk of a flare. However, the safety of biologic DMARDs for long-term use has not been determined and may be associated with the developmentof cancer. The association between tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors and potential increased risk of lymphoma caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to place boxed warning labels on biologic DMARDs including etancercept, infliximab, and adalimumab. The effectiveness of the DMARDs appears to vary among categories of JIA and the treatment history of individual patients. Except for methotrexate, there is insufficient evidence to support selection of a specific drug or drug class over another in the treatment of JIA. The AHRQ review examines the scientific literature on DMARDs used in children with JIA in an effort to synthesize what is known about the subject, and the comprehensive review identifies important research gaps in the literature that need to be addressed. Only 8 studies (in 9 publications) were rated "good quality" by the AHRQ investigators.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the U.S. government has designated funding of several large-scale initiatives for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in health care. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 apportioned more than $1 billion to support CER programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). CER is generally defined as the undertaking of original research or systematic reviews of published literature in order to compare the benefits and risks of different approaches to preventing, diagnosing, or treating diseases. These approaches may include diagnostic tests, medications, medical devices, and surgeries. The overall goals of CER are to support informed health care decisions by patients, clinicians, payers, and policy makers and to apply its evidence to ultimately improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of health care.