A systematic evidence-based review of treatments for primary hyperhidrosis.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating) is associated with significant quality-of-life burden yet is often undertreated. With limited FDA-approved treatments, health care providers must determine optimal treatment among approved and off-label options. Key objectives of this review were to reassess, update, and expand a previous systematic review of commonly used treatment options for primary hyperhidrosis, including consideration of aluminum and zirconium compounds. METHODS: We performed a qualitative systematic review of efficacy, health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and safety of interventions, replicating and expanding the strategy outlined in a previous systematic review, with the addition of studies utilizing a within-patient design. We performed a critical appraisal of identified studies to determine risk of bias (RoB) and strength of evidence (SOE). RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were eligible for critical appraisal. Only three studies - two clinical trials of glycopyrronium cloth (2.4%) and one trial of botulinum toxin A injections in axillary hyperhidrosis were rated as "low" RoB; both had SOE ratings of "moderate" for use in axillary hyperhidrosis - the highest rating included in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal treatment choice depends on several factors, including understanding the quality of evidence regarding each treatment's efficacy and safety (considerations of convenience and cost are beyond the scope of this review). In hyperhidrosis, as in other clinical conditions, treatment decisions should be patient centered. At this time, because of the quality of evidence, only imprecise estimates of effect are possible for hyperhidrosis treatments included in this review, and statements about comparative effectiveness are not possible.

How to survive the medical misinformation mess.

Most physicians and other healthcare professionals are unaware of the pervasiveness of poor quality clinical evidence that contributes considerably to overuse, underuse, avoidable adverse events, missed opportunities for right care and wasted healthcare resources. The Medical Misinformation Mess comprises four key problems. First, much published medical research is not reliable or is of uncertain reliability, offers no benefit to patients, or is not useful to decision makers. Second, most healthcare professionals are not aware of this problem. Third, they also lack the skills necessary to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of medical evidence. Finally, patients and families frequently lack relevant, accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance at the time of medical decision-making. Increasing the reliability of available, published evidence may not be an imminently reachable goal. Therefore, efforts should focus on making healthcare professionals, more sensitive to the limitations of the evidence, training them to do critical appraisal, and enhancing their communication skills so that they can effectively summarize and discuss medical evidence with patients to improve decision-making. Similar efforts may need to target also patients, journalists, policy makers, the lay public and other healthcare stakeholders.