PurposeTo evaluate persistence and adherence of oral pharmacotherapy used in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) in a real-world setting.Materials and methodsSystematic literature searches of six electronic publication databases were performed to identify observational studies of patients with OAB treated with antimuscarinics and/or mirabegron. Studies obtaining persistence and adherence data from sources other than electronic prescription claims were excluded. Reference lists of identified studies and relevant systematic reviews were assessed to identify additional relevant studies.ResultsThe search identified 3897 studies, of which 30 were included. Overall, persistence ranged from 5% to 47%. In studies reporting data for antimuscarinics and mirabegron (n=3), 1-year persistence was 12%–25% and 32%–38%, respectively. Median time to discontinuation was <5 months for antimuscarinics (except one study (6.5 months)) and 5.6–7.4 months for mirabegron. The proportion of patients adherent at 1 year varied between 15% and 44%. In studies reporting adherence for antimuscarinics and mirabegron, adherence was higher with mirabegron (mean medication possession ratio (MPR): 0.59 vs 0.41–0.53; mean proportion of days covered: 0.66 vs 0.55; and median MPR: 0.65 vs 0.19–0.49). Reported determinants of persistence and adherence included female (sex), older age group, use of extended-release formulation and treatment experience.ConclusionMost patients with OAB discontinued oral OAB pharmacotherapy and were non-adherent 1 year after treatment initiation. In general, mirabegron was associated with greater persistence and adherence compared with antimuscarinics. Combined with existing clinical trial evidence, this real-world review merits consideration of mirabegron for first-line pharmacological treatment among patients with OAB.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017059894.

ObjectivesThis study examined patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in real-world settings.MethodsA systematic review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database NHS EED) databases were searched for studies published in English language up to April 2018. Prospective and retrospective observational studies that used prescription claim databases or hospital medical records to examine patient adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonate treatment among adults with osteoporosis were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsThe search yielded 540 published studies, of which 89 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The mean age of patients included within the studies ranged between 53 to 80.8 years, and the follow-up varied from 3 months to 14 years. The mean persistence of oral bisphosphonates for 6 months, 1 year and 2 years ranged from 34.8% to 71.3%, 17.7% to 74.8% and 12.9% to 72.0%, respectively. The mean medication possession ratio ranged from 28.2% to 84.5%, 23% to 50%, 27.2% to 46% over 1 year, 2 years and 3 years, respectively. All studies included scored between 6 to 8 out of 9 on the NOS. The determinants of adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates included geographic residence, marital status, tobacco use, educational status, income, hospitalisation, medication type and dosing frequency.ConclusionsWhile a number of studies reported high levels of persistence and adherence, the findings of this review suggest that patient persistence and adherence with oral bisphosphonates medications was poor and reduced notably over time. Overall, adherence was suboptimal. To maximise adherence and persistence to oral bisphosphonates, it is important to consider possible determinants, including characteristics of the patients.

AimsWe conducted a systematic review assessing the reporting quality of studies validating models based on machine learning (ML) for clinical diagnosis, with a specific focus on the reporting of information concerning the participants on which the diagnostic task was evaluated on.MethodMedline Core Clinical Journals were searched for studies published between July 2015 and July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. An extraction list was developed from the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the eligible articles. Third and fourth reviewers checked, verified the extracted data as well as resolved any discrepancies between the reviewers.ResultsThe search results yielded 161 papers, of which 28 conformed to the eligibility criteria. Detail of data source was reported in 24 of the 28 papers. For all of the papers, the set of patients on which the ML-based diagnostic system was evaluated was partitioned from a larger dataset, and the method for deriving such set was always reported. Information on the diagnostic/non-diagnostic classification was reported well (23/28). The least reported items were the use of reporting guideline (0/28), distribution of disease severity (8/28 patient flow diagram (10/28) and distribution of alternative diagnosis (10/28). A large proportion of studies (23/28) had a delay between the conduct of the reference standard and ML tests, while one study did not and four studies were unclear. For 15 studies, it was unclear whether the evaluation group corresponded to the setting in which the ML test will be applied to.ConclusionAll studies in this review failed to use reporting guidelines, and a large proportion of them lacked adequate detail on participants, making it difficult to replicate, assess and interpret study findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018099167.

Introduction. This small pilot study aimed to examine the feasibility of an upper limb rehabilitation system (the YouGrabber) in a community rehabilitation centre, qualitatively explore participant experiences, and describe changes after using it. Methods and Material. Chronic stroke participants attending a community rehabilitation centre in the UK were randomised to either a YouGrabber or a gym group and completed 18 training sessions over 12 weeks. The motor activity log, box and block, and fatigue severity score were administered by a blinded assessor before and after the intervention. Semistructured interviews were used to ascertain participants' views about using the YouGrabber. Results. Twelve participants (6 females) with chronic stroke were recruited. All adhered to the intervention. There were no adverse events, dropouts, or withdrawal. There were no significant differences between the YouGrabber and gym groups although there were significant within group improvements on the motor activity log (median change: 0.59, range: 0.2–1.25; p < 0.05) within the YouGrabber group. Participants reported that the YouGrabber was motivational but they expressed frustration with technical challenges. Conclusions. The YouGrabber appeared practical and may improve upper limb activities in people several months after stroke. Future work could examine cognition, cost effectiveness, and different training intensities.

disagree and 7¼completely agree). Consensus was established when at least 75% of the respondents reached agreement (5-7 points) or disagreement (1-3 points). Descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen panelists completed the questionnaire (rheumatologists: 75.7%; dermatologists: 15.7%; nurses 1.7%; hospital pharmacists: 2.6%; clinical psychologists: 1.7%; and healthcare managers: 2.6%). In PsA patients with peripheral involvement, consensus was reached on the use of either Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) + Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) (S: 91.2%, F: 85.2% agreement) or Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) + PsAID-12 + C-reactive protein (S: 90.5%, F: 76.5%). In PsA patients with axial involvement, consensus was reached on the use of Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) + PsAID-12 (S: 85.3%, F: 76.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary consensus has been reached on the most suitable and feasible sets of measurement instruments, including clinical and PRO measures, to assess the effectiveness of BT in PsA patients in the Spanish setting. Further research should explore a therapeutic success definition.