Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Adults: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Dental caries and periodontal disease are common adult oral health conditions and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention.

Objective

To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries and periodontal disease in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023.

Study Selection

Diagnostic accuracy studies of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Diagnostic accuracy data were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Dental caries, periodontal disease, morbidity, quality of life, harms; and diagnostic test accuracy.

Results

Five randomized clinical trials, 5 nonrandomized trials, and 6 observational studies (total 3300 participants) were included. One poor-quality trial (n = 477) found no difference between oral health screening during pregnancy vs no screening in caries, periodontal disease, or birth outcomes. One study (n = 86) found oral health examination by 2 primary care clinicians associated with low sensitivity (0.42 and 0.56) and high specificity (0.84 and 0.87) for periodontal disease and with variable sensitivity (0.33 and 0.83) and high specificity (0.80 and 0.93) for dental caries. Four studies (n = 965) found screening questionnaires associated with a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.83) and specificity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for periodontal disease. For preventive interventions no study evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral, and evidence from 2 poor-quality trials (n = 178) of sealants, and 1 fair-quality and 4 poor-quality trials (n = 971) of topical fluorides, was insufficient. Three fair-quality trials (n = 590) of persons with mean age 72 to 80 years found silver diamine fluoride solution associated with fewer new root caries lesions or fillings vs placebo (mean reduction, -0.33 to -1.3) and decreased likelihood of new root caries lesion (2 trials; adjusted odds ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]). No trial evaluated primary care-administered preventive interventions.

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening questionnaires were associated with moderate diagnostic accuracy for periodontal disease. Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of oral health primary care screening and preventive interventions.

Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Children and Adolescents Aged 5 to 17 Years: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Dental caries is common in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention.

Objective

To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023.

Study Selection

Diagnostic accuracy of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions and systematic reviews of such studies; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for fluoride supplements and xylitol; for other preventive interventions, pooled estimates were used from good-quality systematic reviews.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Dental caries, morbidity, functional status, quality of life, harms; diagnostic test accuracy.

Results

Three systematic reviews (total 20 684 participants) and 19 randomized clinical trials, 3 nonrandomized trials, and 1 observational study (total 15 026 participants) were included. No study compared screening vs no screening. When administered by dental professionals or in school settings, fluoride supplements compared with placebo or no intervention were associated with decreased change from baseline in the number of decayed, missing, or filled permanent teeth (DMFT index) or decayed or filled permanent teeth (DFT index) (mean difference, -0.73 [95% CI, -1.30 to -0.19]) at 1.5 to 3 years (6 trials; n = 1395). Fluoride gels were associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.27) at outcomes closest to 3 years (4 trials; n = 1525), fluoride varnish was associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.11-0.76) at 1 to 4.5 years (5 trials; n = 3902), and resin-based sealants were associated with decreased risk of carious first molars (odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) at 48 to 54 months (4 trials; n = 440). No trial evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral. Evidence on screening accuracy, silver diamine fluoride, xylitol, and harms was very limited, although serious harms were not reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

Administration of fluoride supplements, fluoride gels, varnish, and sealants in dental or school settings improved caries outcomes. Research is needed on the effectiveness of oral health preventive interventions in primary care settings and to determine the benefits and harms of screening.

Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

A 2019 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) associated with decreased HIV infection risk vs placebo or no PrEP in adults at increased HIV acquisition risk. Newer PrEP regimens are available.

Objective

To update the 2019 review on PrEP, to inform the USPSTF.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase (January 2018 to May 16, 2022); surveillance through March 24, 2023.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials of PrEP vs placebo or no PrEP or newer vs older PrEP regimens and diagnostic accuracy studies of instruments for predicting incident HIV infection.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data abstraction. Data were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

HIV acquisition, mortality, and harms; and diagnostic test accuracy.

Results

Thirty-two studies were included in the review (20 randomized clinical trials [N = 36 543] and 12 studies of diagnostic accuracy [N = 5 544 500]). Eleven trials in the 2019 review found oral PrEP associated with decreased HIV infection risk vs placebo or no PrEP (n = 18 172; relative risk [RR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]). Higher adherence was associated with greater efficacy. One new trial (n = 5335) found oral tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) to be noninferior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in men who have sex with men (RR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.19-1.14]). Two new trials found long-acting injectable cabotegravir associated with decreased risk of HIV infection vs oral TDF/FTC (RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18-0.62] in cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women [n = 4490] and RR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.04-0.31] in cisgender women [n = 3178]). Discrimination of instruments for predicting incident HIV infection was moderate in men who have sex with men (5 studies; n = 25 488) and moderate to high in general populations of persons without HIV (2 studies; n = 5 477 291).

Conclusions and Relevance

In adults at increased HIV acquisition risk, oral PrEP was associated with decreased risk of acquiring HIV infection compared with placebo or no PrEP. Oral TAF/FTC was noninferior to oral TDF/FTC, and injectable cabotegravir reduced the risk of HIV infection compared with oral TDF/FTC in the populations studied.

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that effective treatments are available for refractive errors, cataracts, and wet (advanced neovascular) or dry (atrophic) age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but there were no differences between visual screening vs no screening on visual acuity or other outcomes.

Objective

To update the 2016 review on screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults, to inform the USPSTF.

Data Sources

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials and controlled observational studies on screening, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (wet AMD), and antioxidant vitamins and minerals (dry AMD); studies on screening diagnostic accuracy.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality.

Results

Twenty-five studies (N = 33 586) were included (13 trials, 11 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 1 systematic review [19 trials]). Four trials (n = 4819) found no significant differences between screening vs no screening in visual acuity or other outcomes. Visual acuity tests (3 studies; n = 6493) and screening question (3 studies; n = 5203) were associated with suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. For wet AMD, 4 trials (n = 2086) found VEGF inhibitors significantly associated with greater likelihood of 15 or more letters visual acuity gain (risk ratio [RR], 2.92 [95% CI, 1.20-7.12]; I2 = 76%; absolute risk difference [ARD], 10%) and less than 15 letters visual acuity loss (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.22-1.75]; I2 = 80%; ARD, 27%) vs sham treatment, with no increased risk of serious harms. For dry AMD, a systematic review (19 trials) found antioxidant multivitamins significantly associated with decreased risk of progression to late AMD (3 trials, n = 2445; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.90]) and 3 lines or more visual acuity loss (1 trial, n = 1791; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]) vs placebo. Zinc was significantly associated with increased risk of genitourinary events and beta carotene with increased risk of lung cancer in former smokers; other serious harms were infrequent.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review found that effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity in older adults. However, direct evidence found no significant association between vision screening vs no screening in primary care and improved visual outcomes.

Screening for Glaucoma in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Two 2013 systematic reviews to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to assess benefits and harms of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 reviews on screening for glaucoma, to inform the USPSTF.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening, referral, and treatment; and studies of screening test diagnostic accuracy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality.

RESULTS

Eighty-three studies (N = 75 887) were included (30 trials and 53 diagnostic accuracy studies). One RCT (n = 616) found screening of frail elderly persons associated with no difference in vision outcomes vs no screening but with significantly greater falls risk (relative risk [RR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]). No study evaluated referral to an eye health professional. For glaucoma diagnosis, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (providing high-resolution cross-sectional imaging; 15 studies, n = 4242) was associated with sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) and the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (for perimetry, or measurement of visual fields; 6 studies, n = 11 244) with sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and specificity 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-0.92); tonometry (for measurement of intraocular pressure; 13 studies, n = 32 892) had low sensitivity (0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.66]). Medical therapy for ocular hypertension and untreated glaucoma was significantly associated with decreased intraocular pressure and decreased likelihood of glaucoma progression (7 trials, n = 3771; RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.96]; absolute risk difference -4.2%) vs placebo, but 1 trial (n = 461) found no differences in visual acuity, quality of life, or function. Selective laser trabeculoplasty and medical therapy had similar outcomes (4 trials, n = 957).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review found limited direct evidence on glaucoma screening, showing no association with benefits. Screening tests can identify persons with glaucoma and treatment was associated with a lower risk of glaucoma progression, but evidence of improvement in visual outcomes, quality of life, and function remains lacking.

Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Schizophrenia: An Overview and Update of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

The authors of this systematic review (SR) sought to provide evidence for effects of commonly used psychosocial interventions on several outcomes among adults with schizophrenia.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were searched through July 2020. Eligible studies were SRs and trials of at least 12 weeks duration and with ≥50 participants that compared psychosocial interventions with treatment as usual among adults with schizophrenia. Study design, year, setting, country, sample size, eligibility criteria, population, clinical and intervention characteristics, results, and funding source were extracted, along with quality criteria. The evidence was evaluated on quality and strength of evidence stratified by intervention area and outcome, according to the Evidence-Based Practice Centers Methods Guide of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

RESULTS

Nine SRs and 30 trials (N=23,921 patients) in 11 intervention areas were included. Trials were mostly of fair quality and had low-to-moderate strength of evidence. Compared with treatment as usual, most psychosocial interventions were more effective in improving intervention-targeted outcomes, including core illness symptoms. Compared with treatment as usual, assertive community treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), family interventions, psychoeducation, social skills training, supported employment, and early interventions for first-episode psychosis (FEP) improved various functional outcomes. CBT and early interventions for FEP improved quality of life. Family interventions, psychoeducation, illness self-management, and early interventions for FEP reduced relapse.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with treatment as usual, most psychosocial interventions improved functional outcomes, quality of life, and core illness symptoms, and several reduced relapse frequency among adults with schizophrenia.

Opioid treatment programs, telemedicine and COVID-19: A scoping review

Background: Methadone and buprenorphine are effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) that are highly regulated in the United States. The on-going opioid crisis, and more recently COVID-19, has prompted reconsideration of these restrictions in order to sustain and improve treatment access, with renewed interest in telemedicine. We reviewed the evidence on use of telemedicine interventions and applicability to MOUD policy changes in the post-COVID-19 treatment landscape. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from inception to April 2021 and reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies were eligible if they examined telemedicine interventions and reported outcomes (e.g. treatment initiation, retention in care). Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; other studies were included when stronger evidence was unavailable. One investigator abstracted key information and a second investigator verified data. We described the results qualitatively. Results: We identified nine studies: three controlled trials (two randomized), and six observational studies. Three studies evaluated patients treated with methadone and six studies with buprenorphine, including one study of pregnant women with OUD. All studies showed telemedicine approaches associated with similar outcomes (treatment retention, positive urine toxicology) compared to treatment as usual. Trials were limited by small samples sizes, lack of reporting harms, and most were conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; observational studies were limited by failure to control for confounding. Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that telemedicine may enhance access to MOUD with similar effectiveness compared with face-to-face treatment. Few studies have been published since COVID-19, and it is unclear the potential impact of these interventions on the existing racial/ethnic disparities in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic and need for social distancing led to temporary policy changes for prescribing of MOUD that could inform additional research in this area to support comprehensive policy reforms.

Office-Based Methadone Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder and Pharmacy Dispensing: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

The authors conducted a scoping review to survey the evidence landscape for studies that assessed outcomes of treating patients with opioid use disorder with methadone in office-based settings.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies were eligible if they focused on methadone treatment in office-based settings conducted in the United States or other highly developed countries and reported outcomes (e.g., retention in care). Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; uncontrolled and descriptive studies were included when stronger evidence was unavailable. One investigator abstracted key information, and a second verified data. A scoping review approach broadly surveyed the evidence, and therefore study quality was not rated formally.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies of patients treated with office-based methadone were identified, including six trials, eight observational studies, and four additional articles discussing use of pharmacies to dispense methadone. Studies on office-based methadone treatment, including primary care-based dispensing, were limited but consistently found that stable methadone patients valued office-based care and remained in care with low rates of drug use; outcomes were similar compared with stable patients in regular care. Office-based methadone treatment was associated with higher treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Limitations included underpowered comparisons and small samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited research suggests that office-based methadone treatment and pharmacy dispensing could enhance access to methadone treatment for patients with opioid use disorder without adversely affecting patient outcomes and, potentially, inform modifications to federal regulations. Research should assess the feasibility of office-based care for less stable patients.

Screening for Gestational Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Gestational diabetes is associated with several poor health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2012 review on screening for gestational diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (2010 to May 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists; surveillance through June 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language intervention studies for screening and treatment; observational studies on screening; prospective studies on screening test accuracy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Single-reviewer data abstraction with verification. Random-effects meta-analysis or bivariate analysis (accuracy).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pregnancy, fetal/neonatal, and long-term health outcomes; harms of screening; accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies were included (18 randomized clinical trials [RCTs] [n = 31 241], 2 nonrandomized intervention studies [n = 190], 56 observational studies [n = 261 678]). Direct evidence on benefits of screening vs no screening was limited to 4 observational studies with inconsistent findings and methodological limitations. Screening was not significantly associated with serious or long-term harm. In 5 RCTs (n = 25 772), 1-step (International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group) vs 2-step (Carpenter and Coustan) screening was significantly associated with increased likelihood of gestational diabetes (11.5% vs 4.9%) but no improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, oral glucose challenge tests with 140- and 135-mg/dL cutoffs had sensitivities of 82% and 93%, respectively, and specificities of 82% and 79%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria, and a test with a 140-mg/dL cutoff had sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 81% against the National Diabetes Group Data criteria. Fasting plasma glucose tests with cutoffs of 85 and 90 mg/dL had sensitivities of 88% and 81% and specificities of 73% and 82%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria. Based on 8 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study (n = 3982), treatment was significantly associated with decreased risk of primary cesarean deliveries (relative risk [RR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 5.3%), shoulder dystocia (RR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.23-0.77]; ARD, 1.3%), macrosomia (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.68]; ARD, 8.9%), large for gestational age (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.47-0.66]; ARD, 8.4%), birth injuries (odds ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-0.99]; ARD, 0.2%), and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-0.99]; ARD, 2.0%). The association with reduction in preterm deliveries was not significant (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56-1.01]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Direct evidence on screening vs no screening remains limited. One- vs 2-step screening was not significantly associated with improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, treatment of gestational diabetes was significantly associated with improved health outcomes.

Interim methadone - Effective but underutilized: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) may provide interim methadone services - up to 120 days of methadone dosing without counseling. Regulatory requirements limit use of interim methadone services. We summarized the evidence on interim methadone and other strategies to minimize wait lists in OTPs.

METHODS

A scoping review selected studies of interim methadone and strategies that facilitated access to methadone. Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; if evidence was lacking, lesser quality evidence was included.

RESULTS

Six studies examined interim methadone and three studies examined alternatives: low threshold services, an open access policy, and a medication first policy. The studies included four randomized clinical trials of interim methadone (with three follow-up reports and five secondary analyses), one prospective cohort of interim methadone, one retrospective cohort of interim methadone, one randomized trial of low threshold services and two pre-post assessments of changes in program or state policies. The clinical trials and observational cohorts reported reductions in heroin use during interim methadone and participants were more likely to enter OTPs than those on wait lists. Retention rates in interim methadone were similar to patients in active treatment. Studies testing strategies to facilitate access to methadone were effective without interim methadone's restrictions.

CONCLUSION

Interim methadone appears to be effective and safe compared to wait list controls and provided similar outcomes to standard services. Interim methadone could increase access to OTPs. More research is needed on the alternative approaches to facilitate access to medication with comparisons to wait list controls and assessment of patient outcomes.

Mobile methadone medication units: A brief history, scoping review and research opportunity

BACKGROUND

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) approved the first mobile medication unit (i.e., a van to administer methadone) in 1988 and approved units on an ad hoc basis until issuing a moratorium in 2007 citing concerns about safety and diversion. In February 2020, the DEA released a notice of proposed rulemaking to permit a resumption of mobile medication units. The Biden Administration plans to release the final rule in 2021. Because a preliminary scan suggested limited evidence, a scoping review examined the research related to methadone vans to identify and assess the extent of mobile methadone research and inform the development and implementation of new mobile services.

METHODS

A scoping review, supplemented with key informant interviews, identified and described the most relevant evidence. Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from inception to July 2020.

RESULTS

Informant interviews provided perspective on the need for and the use of mobile medication units, the history of methadone vans, and benefits and problems associated with the units. The scoping review found limited evidence: three cohort analyses (one prospective) and one before and after analysis (four studies) of individuals using mobile medication services. Mobile services were associated with enhanced retention in care (relative to patients in fixed site programs) and mobile units appeared to facilitate access for underserved populations with opioid use disorders.

DISCUSSION

The key informants addressed the history of methadone vans, the potential use to serve rural communities and correctional facilities and the benefits and problems associated with mobile services. The scoping review found evidence that mobile services increase methadone access among underserved populations and may enhance retention in care. The DEA's proposed regulatory modification creates opportunities to further evaluate the implementation and the effects of mobile medication units.

Screening for Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Nonpregnant Adolescents and Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

A 2014 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found antiviral therapy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with improved intermediate outcomes, although evidence on clinical outcomes was limited.

Objective

To update the 2014 HBV screening review in nonpregnant adolescents and adults to inform the USPSTF.

Data Sources

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to August 2019); with surveillance through July 24, 2020.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on screening and antiviral therapy; cohort studies on screening, antiviral therapy clinical outcomes, and the association between achieving intermediate outcomes after antiviral therapy and clinical outcomes.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

One investigator abstracted data; a second investigator checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Random-effects profile likelihood meta-analysis was performed.

Results

Thirty trials and 20 cohort studies, with a total of 94 168 participants, were included. No study directly evaluated the effects of screening for HBV infection vs no screening on clinical outcomes such as mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, or cirrhosis. Screening strategies that focused on risk factors such as ever having immigrated from high-prevalence countries and demographic and behavioral risk factors would identify nearly all HBV infection cases. In 1 study (n = 21 008), only screening immigrants from high-prevalence countries would miss approximately two-thirds of infected persons. Based on 18 trials (n = 2972), antiviral therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with greater likelihood of achieving intermediate outcomes, such as virologic suppression and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen loss or seroconversion; the numbers needed to treat ranged from 2.6 for virologic suppression to 17 for HBeAg seroconversion. Based on 12 trials (n = 4127), first-line antiviral therapies were at least as likely as nonpreferred therapies to achieve intermediate outcomes. Based on 16 trials (n = 4809), antiviral therapy might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, but data were sparse and imprecise. Nine cohort studies (n = 3893) indicated an association between achieving an intermediate outcome following antiviral therapy and improved clinical outcomes but were heterogeneous (hazard ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.87). Antiviral therapy was associated with higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events vs placebo or no antiviral therapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

There was no direct evidence for the clinical benefits and harms of HBV screening vs no screening. Antiviral therapy for HBV infection was associated with improved intermediate outcomes and may improve clinical outcomes.

Updating the Comparative Evidence on Second‐Generation Antipsychotic Use With Schizophrenia

Objective

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature comparing second‐generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with each other and with first‐generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in treating schizophrenia.

Methods

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were searched through January 2020. Following standard methods, recent high‐quality systematic reviews of each drug comparison and subsequently published primary studies were included to update the meta‐analyses with any new data. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, abstraction, and quality assessment.

Results

Two systematic reviews and 29 newer trials (total of 162 trials of SGAs, N=53,861; 116 trials of SGAs versus FGAs, N=119,558) were included. Most trials were of fair quality, industry‐funded, and included older SGAs and a few recently approved SGAs (asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, brexpiprazole and long‐acting injection [LAI] formulations of aripiprazole and paliperidone). Older SGAs had similar effects on function, quality of life, mortality, and adverse event incidence, although clozapine improved symptoms more than most other drugs and olanzapine and risperidone were superior to some other drugs. Olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole performed similarly on outcomes of benefit compared with haloperidol. Risperidone LAI and olanzapine resulted in fewer withdrawals due to adverse events, but risk of diabetes increased with olanzapine. Haloperidol had greater incidence of adverse events than did olanzapine and risperidone, but similar effects on other outcomes.

Conclusions

Most comparative evidence favored older SGAs, with clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone superior on more outcomes than other SGAs. Older SGAs had similar benefits as haloperidol but with fewer adverse events.

Use of the second‐generation antipsychotics olanzapine, aripiprazole, risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone resulted in similar function, quality of life, mortality, and overall incidence of adverse events.

Core illness symptoms improved more with olanzapine and risperidone than asenapine, quetiapine, or ziprasidone, and more with paliperidone than lurasidone or iloperidone.

Haloperidol showed similar benefits but more adverse events than did olanzapine or risperidone.

Screening for Unhealthy Drug Use: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Illicit drug use is among the most common causes of preventable morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on screening and interventions for drug use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 18, 2018; literature surveillance through September 21, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Test accuracy studies to detect drug misuse and randomized clinical trials of screening and interventions to reduce drug use.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers and random-effects meta-analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, drug use and other health, social, and legal outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine studies (N = 84 206) were included. Twenty-eight studies (n = 65 720) addressed drug screening accuracy. Among adults, sensitivity and specificity of screening tools for detecting unhealthy drug use ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 and 0.87 to 0.97, respectively. Interventions to reduce drug use were evaluated in 52 trials (n = 15 659) of psychosocial interventions, 7 trials (n = 1109) of opioid agonist therapy, and 13 trials (n = 1718) of naltrexone. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of drug use abstinence (15 trials, n = 3636; relative risk [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%]) and reduced number of drug use days (19 trials, n = 5085; mean difference, -0.49 day in the last 7 days [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.13]) vs no psychosocial intervention at 3- to 4-month follow-up. In treatment-seeking populations, opioid agonist therapy and naltrexone were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse (4 trials, n = 567; RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82]; ARD, -35% [95% CI, -67% to -3%] and 12 trials, n = 1599; RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.85]; ARD, -18% [95% CI, -26% to -10%], respectively) vs placebo or no medication. While evidence on harms was limited, it indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Several screening instruments with acceptable sensitivity and specificity are available to screen for drug use, although there is no direct evidence on the benefits or harms of screening. Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations.

Screening for HIV Infection in Asymptomatic, Nonpregnant Adolescents and Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Untreated HIV infection can result in significant morbidity, mortality, and HIV transmission. A 2012 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found antiretroviral therapy (ART) associated with improved clinical outcomes and decreased transmission risk in persons with CD4 cell counts less than 500/mm3.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2012 review on HIV screening to inform the USPSTF.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2012 to June 2018, with surveillance through January 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Nonpregnant individuals 12 years and older; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies of screening vs no screening, alternative screening strategies, earlier vs later initiation of ART, and long-term harms of ART.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality, AIDS events, quality of life, function, and HIV transmission; harms of screening and long-term (≥2 years) harms of ART; screening yield.

RESULTS

Eighteen new studies (5 RCTs, 11 cohort studies, and 2 systematic reviews; N = 266 563) were included, and 11 studies (2 RCTs and 9 cohort studies; N = 218 542) were carried forward from the prior USPSTF report. No study directly evaluated effects of HIV screening vs no screening on clinical outcomes or harms, or the yield of alternative screening strategies. Two newly identified RCTs conducted completely or partially in low-resource settings found ART initiation at CD4 cell counts greater than 500/mm3 associated with lower risk of a composite outcome of mortality, AIDS-defining events, or serious non-AIDS events (relative risk [RR], 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.63] and RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.35-0.95]); results were consistent with those from a large observational study. Early ART was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Early ART initiation was associated with sustained reduction in risk of HIV transmission at 5.5 years (RR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02-0.22] for linked transmission). New evidence regarding the association between abacavir use and risk of cardiovascular events was inconsistent. Certain antiretroviral regimens were associated with increased risk of long-term neuropsychiatric, renal, hepatic, and bone adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In nonpregnant adolescents and adults there was no direct evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of screening for HIV infections vs no screening, or the yield of repeat or alternative screening strategies. New evidence extends effectiveness of ART to asymptomatic individuals with CD4 cell counts greater than 500/mm3 and shows sustained reduction in risk of HIV transmission at longer-term follow-up, although certain ART regimens may be associated with increased risk of long-term harms.

Screening for HIV Infection in Pregnant Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Prenatal screening for HIV can inform use of interventions to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) previously found strong evidence that prenatal HIV screening reduced risk of mother-to-child transmission. The previous evidence review was conducted in 2012.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2012 review on prenatal HIV screening to inform the USPSTF.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2012 to June 2018, with surveillance through January 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Pregnant persons 13 years and older; randomized clinical trials and cohort studies of screening vs no screening; risk of mother-to-child transmission or maternal or infant harms associated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy; screening yield at different intervals or in different risk groups.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mother-to-child transmission; harms of screening and treatment; screening yield.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included in this review, including 29 new studies. There remains no direct evidence on effects of prenatal screening vs no screening on risk of mother-to-child HIV transmission, maternal or infant clinical outcomes, or the yield of repeat or alternative screening strategies. New evidence confirms that combination ART is highly effective at reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission, with some new cohort studies reporting rates of mother-to-child transmission less than 1% when combination ART was started early in pregnancy (when begun in first trimester, 0%-0.4%; when begun after first trimester, or at any time if timing of ART initiation not reported, 0.4%-2.8%). New evidence on harms of ART was also largely consistent with the previous review. Evidence from primarily observational studies found prenatal combination ART with a boosted protease inhibitor associated with increased risk of preterm delivery (range, 14.4%-26.1%). For other birth outcomes (low birth weight, small for gestational age, stillbirth, birth defects, neonatal death), results were mixed and depended on the specific antiretroviral drug or drug regimen given and timing of prenatal therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Combination ART was highly effective at reducing risk of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Use of certain ART regimens during pregnancy was associated with increased risk of harms that may be mitigated by selection of ART regimen. The 2012 review found that avoidance of breastfeeding and cesarean delivery in women with viremia also reduced risk of transmission and that prenatal screening accurately diagnosed HIV infection.

Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Effective prevention strategies for HIV infection are an important public health priority. Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) involves use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) daily or before and after sex to decrease risk of acquiring HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of PrEP, instruments for predicting incident HIV infection, and PrEP adherence to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE through June 2018, with surveillance through January 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of oral PrEP with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy; studies on the diagnostic accuracy of instruments for predicting incident HIV infection; and studies on PrEP adherence.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data abstraction. Data were pooled using the Dersimonian and Laird random-effects model for effects of PrEP on HIV infection, mortality, and harms.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

HIV acquisition, mortality, and harms; adherence to PrEP; and diagnostic test accuracy and discrimination.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (N = 18 837), 8 observational studies (N = 3884), and 7 studies of diagnostic accuracy (N = 32 279) were included. PrEP was associated with decreased risk of HIV infection vs placebo or no PrEP after 4 months to 4 years (11 trials; relative risk [RR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]; I2 = 67%; absolute risk reduction [ARD], -2.0% [95% CI, -2.8% to -1.2%]). Greater adherence was associated with greater efficacy (RR with adherence ≥70%, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.19-0.39]; I2 = 0%) in 6 trials. PrEP was associated with an increased risk of renal adverse events (12 trials; RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.18-1.75]; I2 = 0%; ARD, 0.56% [95% CI, 0.09%-1.04%]) and gastrointestinal adverse events (12 trials; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.26-2.11]; I2 = 43%; ARD, 1.95% [95% CI, 0.48%-3.43%]); most adverse events were mild and reversible. Instruments for predicting incident HIV infection had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.49-0.72) and require further validation. Adherence to PrEP in the United States in men who have sex with men varied widely (22%-90%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In adults at increased risk of HIV infection, PrEP with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine was associated with decreased risk of acquiring HIV infection compared with placebo or no PrEP, although effectiveness decreased with suboptimal adherence.

Screening for Celiac Disease: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Silent or subclinical celiac disease may result in potentially avoidable adverse health consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic adults, adolescents, and children 3 years and older for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, searched to June 14, 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and cohort or case-control studies on clinical benefits and harms of screening vs no screening for celiac disease or treatment vs no treatment for screen-detected celiac disease; studies on diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cancer incidence, gastrointestinal outcomes, psychological outcomes, child growth outcomes, health outcomes resulting from nutritional deficiencies, quality of life, mortality, and harms of screening. No meta-analytic pooling was done.

RESULTS

One systematic review and 3 primary studies met inclusion criteria. No trials of screening for celiac disease were identified. One recent, good-quality systematic review of 56 original studies and 12 previous systematic reviews (sample sizes of primary studies ranging from 62 to more than 12 000 participants) found IgA tissue transglutaminase was associated with high accuracy (sensitivity and specificity both >90%) for diagnosing celiac disease. IgA endomysial antibodies tests were associated with high specificity. Only 2 studies of serologic tests for celiac disease involving 62 and 158 patients were conducted in asymptomatic populations and reported lower sensitivity (57% and 71%). One fair-quality, small (n = 40) Finnish treatment trial of asymptomatic adults with screen-detected celiac disease based on positive serologic findings found initiation of a gluten-free diet associated with small improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms compared with no gluten-free diet (difference less than 1 point on a scale of 1 to 7) at 1 year, with no differences on most measures of quality of life. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred during the trial; no other harms were reported. No studies were identified that addressed the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although some evidence was found regarding diagnostic accuracy of tests for celiac disease, little or no evidence was identified to inform most of the key questions related to benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic individuals. More research is needed to understand the effectiveness of screening and treatment for celiac disease, accuracy of screening tests in asymptomatic persons, and optimal screening strategies.

Primary Care-Based Models for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review

Greater integration of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) in U.S. primary care settings would expand access to treatment for this condition. Models for integrating MAT into primary care vary in structure. This article summarizes findings of a technical report for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality describing MAT models of care for OUD, based on a literature review and interviews with key informants in the field. The report describes 12 representative models of care for integrating MAT into primary care settings that could be considered for adaptation across diverse health care settings. Common components of existing care models include pharmacotherapy with buprenorphine or naltrexone, provider and community education, coordination and integration of OUD treatment with other medical and psychological needs, and psychosocial services and interventions. Models vary in how each component is implemented. Decisions about adopting MAT models of care should be individualized to address the unique milieu of each implementation setting.

Screening for Dyslipidemia in Younger Adults: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia may occur in younger adults (defined as persons aged 21 to 39 years) and is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Screening might identify younger adults with asymptomatic dyslipidemia who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies.

PURPOSE

To update the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on dyslipidemia screening in younger adults.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and MEDLINE through May 2016, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies on screening for or treatment of asymptomatic dyslipidemia in adults aged 21 to 39 years.

DATA EXTRACTION

The plan was for 1 investigator to abstract data and a second to check their accuracy, and for 2 investigators to independently assess study quality; however, no studies met the inclusion criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No study evaluated the effects of lipid screening versus no screening, treatment versus no treatment, or delayed versus earlier treatment on clinical outcomes in younger adults. In addition, no study evaluated the diagnostic yield of alternative screening strategies (such as targeted screening of persons with a family history of hyperlipidemia vs. general screening) in younger adults.

LIMITATION

No direct relevant evidence.

CONCLUSION

Direct evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for or treatment of dyslipidemia in younger adults remains unavailable. Estimating the potential effects of screening for dyslipidemia in this population requires extrapolation from studies performed in older adults.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Impaired visual acuity is common among older adults and can adversely affect function and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To update a 2009 systematic review on screening for impaired visual acuity among older adults for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of screening; diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tests in primary care settings; and randomized clinical trials of treatment vs placebo or no treatment for uncorrected refractive errors, cataracts, and dry (atrophic) or wet (exudative) age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Studies of screening and diagnostic accuracy were limited to asymptomatic adults 65 years or older; studies of treatment included asymptomatic adults of any age.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative and absolute benefits of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for wet AMD.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Visual acuity, vision-related function, functional capacity, harms, and diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Three trials (n = 4728) from the 2009 USPSTF review found that screening for impaired visual acuity was not associated with improved visual or clinical outcomes. In 1 good-quality trial (n = 3346), universal screening identified 27% of persons with impaired visual acuity and correctable impairment vs 3.1% with targeted screening, but there was no difference in the likelihood of visual acuity worse than 20/60 after 3 to 5 years (37% vs 35%; relative risk [RR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84-1.36). The 2009 review found that effective treatments are available for uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Ten-year trial results of dry AMD found an antioxidant/zinc combination was associated with decreased risk of visual acuity loss (46% vs 54%; odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88). An updated meta-analysis found anti-VEGF for wet AMD was associated with greater likelihood of having vision 20/200 or better vs sham injection (4 trials; RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.30-1.66; I2 = 42%; absolute risk difference, 24%; 95% CI, 12%-37% after 1 year). New evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of visual acuity screening tests was limited and consistent with previous findings that screening questions or a visual acuity test was associated with suboptimal accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Screening can identify persons with impaired visual acuity, and effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity, such as uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and dry or wet AMD. However, direct evidence found no significant difference between vision screening in older adults in primary care settings vs no screening for improving visual acuity or other clinical outcomes.

Epidural Corticosteroid Injections for Radiculopathy and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of epidural corticosteroid injections is increasing.

PURPOSE

To review evidence on the benefits and harms of epidural corticosteroid injections in adults with radicular low back pain or spinal stenosis of any duration.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (through May 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of epidural corticosteroid injections versus placebo interventions, or that compared epidural injection techniques, corticosteroids, or doses.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment of individual studies, which were used to determine the overall strength of evidence (SOE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

30 placebo-controlled trials evaluated epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy, and 8 trials were done for spinal stenosis. For radiculopathy, epidural corticosteroids were associated with greater immediate-term reduction in pain (weighted mean difference on a scale of 0 to 100, -7.55 [95% CI, -11.4 to -3.74]; SOE, moderate), function (standardized mean difference after exclusion of an outlier trial, -0.33 [CI, -0.56 to -0.09]; SOE, low), and short-term surgery risk (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.41 to 0.92]; SOE, low). Effects were below predefined minimum clinically important difference thresholds, and there were no longer-term benefits. Limited evidence showed no clear effects of technical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates. There were no clear effects of epidural corticosteroid injections for spinal stenosis (SOE, low to moderate). Serious harms were rare, but harms reporting was suboptimal (SOE, low).

LIMITATIONS

The review was restricted to English-language studies. Some meta-analyses were based on small numbers of trials (particularly for spinal stenosis), and most trials had methodological shortcomings.

CONCLUSION

Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy were associated with immediate reductions in pain and function. However, benefits were small and not sustained, and there was no effect on long-term surgery risk. Limited evidence suggested no effectiveness for spinal stenosis.

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus could lead to earlier identification and treatment of asymptomatic diabetes, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), potentially resulting in improved outcomes.

PURPOSE

To update the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on diabetes screening in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane databases and MEDLINE (2007 through October 2014) and relevant studies from previous Task Force reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials; controlled, observational studies; and systematic reviews.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and checked by a second; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In 2 trials, screening for diabetes was associated with no 10-year mortality benefit versus no screening (hazard ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.25]). Sixteen trials consistently found that treatment of IFG or IGT was associated with delayed progression to diabetes. Most trials of treatment of IFG or IGT found no effects on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, although lifestyle modification was associated with decreased risk for both outcomes after 23 years in 1 trial. For screen-detected diabetes, 1 trial found no effect of an intensive multifactorial intervention on risk for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality versus standard control. In diabetes that was not specifically screen-detected, 9 systematic reviews found that intensive glucose control did not reduce risk for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and results for intensive blood pressure control were inconsistent.

LIMITATION

The review was restricted to English-language articles, and few studies were conducted in screen-detected populations.

CONCLUSION

Screening for diabetes did not improve mortality rates after 10 years of follow-up. More evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of treatments for screen-detected diabetes. Treatment of IFG or IGT was associated with delayed progression to diabetes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Routine iron supplementation and screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnancy: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Routine screening and supplementation for iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in asymptomatic, nonanemic pregnant women could improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

PURPOSE

Update of a 2006 systematic review by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on screening and supplementation for IDA in pregnancy.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (1996 to August 2014) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews to identify studies published since 1996.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language trials and controlled observational studies about effectiveness of screening and routine supplementation for IDA in developed countries.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction and quality assessment confirmed and dual-rated by a second investigator using prespecified criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No study directly compared clinical outcomes or harms of screening or not screening pregnant women for IDA. Twelve supplementation trials were included, and no controlled observational studies met inclusion criteria. On the basis of 11 trials, routine maternal iron supplementation had inconsistent effects on rates of cesarean delivery, small size for gestational age, and low birthweight and no effect on maternal quality of life, gestational age, Apgar scores, preterm birth, or infant mortality. Twelve trials reported improvements in maternal hematologic indices, although not all were statistically significant. Pooled analysis of 4 trials resulted in a statistically significant difference in IDA incidence at term, favoring supplementation (risk ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.49]; I2 = 0%). Maternal iron supplementation did not affect infant iron status at 6 months. Harms, none of which were serious or had long-term consequences, were inconsistently reported in 10 of the trials, with most finding no difference between groups.

LIMITATIONS

Data from trials in countries with limited generalizability to U.S. populations were included. Studies were methodologically heterogeneous, and some were small and underpowered.

CONCLUSION

There is inconclusive evidence that routine prenatal supplementation for IDA improves maternal or infant clinical health outcomes, but supplementation may improve maternal hematologic indices.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening and routine supplementation for iron deficiency anemia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Supplementation and screening for iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) in young children may improve growth and development outcomes. The goal of this study was to review the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of screening and routine supplementation for IDA for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

METHODS

We searched Medline and Cochrane databases (1996-August 2014), as well as reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We included trials and controlled observational studies regarding the effectiveness and harms of routine iron supplementation and screening in children ages 6 to 24 months conducted in developed countries. One author extracted data, which were checked for accuracy by a second author. Dual quality assessment was performed.

RESULTS

No studies of iron supplementation in young children reported on the diagnosis of neurodevelopmental delay. Five of 6 trials sparsely reporting various growth outcomes found no clear benefit of supplementation. After 3 to 12 months, Bayley Scales of Infant Development scores were not significantly different in 2 trials. Ten trials assessing iron supplementation in children reported inconsistent findings for hematologic measures. Evidence regarding the harms of supplementation was limited but did not indicate significant differences. No studies assessed the benefits or harms of screening or the association between improvement in impaired iron status and clinical outcomes. Studies may have been underpowered, and control factors varied and could have confounded results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some evidence on supplementation for IDA in young children indicates improvements in hematologic values, evidence on clinical outcomes is lacking. No randomized controlled screening studies are available.

The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop

BACKGROUND

Increases in prescriptions of opioid medications for chronic pain have been accompanied by increases in opioid overdoses, abuse, and other harms and uncertainty about long-term effectiveness.

PURPOSE

To evaluate evidence on the effectiveness and harms of long-term (>3 months) opioid therapy for chronic pain in adults.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (January 2008 through August 2014); relevant studies from a prior review; reference lists; and ClinicalTrials.gov.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials and observational studies that involved adults with chronic pain who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy and that evaluated opioid therapy versus placebo, no opioid, or nonopioid therapy; different opioid dosing strategies; or risk mitigation strategies.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and quality assessment.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No study of opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy evaluated long-term (>1 year) outcomes related to pain, function, quality of life, opioid abuse, or addiction. Good- and fair-quality observational studies suggest that opioid therapy for chronic pain is associated with increased risk for overdose, opioid abuse, fractures, myocardial infarction, and markers of sexual dysfunction, although there are few studies for each of these outcomes; for some harms, higher doses are associated with increased risk. Evidence on the effectiveness and harms of different opioid dosing and risk mitigation strategies is limited.

LIMITATIONS

Non-English-language articles were excluded, meta-analysis could not be done, and publication bias could not be assessed. No placebo-controlled trials met inclusion criteria, evidence was lacking for many comparisons and outcomes, and observational studies were limited in their ability to address potential confounding.

CONCLUSION

Evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of long-term opioid therapy for improving chronic pain and function. Evidence supports a dose-dependent risk for serious harms.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening and treatment of thyroid dysfunction: an evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend thyroid screening.

PURPOSE

To update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on the benefits and harms of screening and treatment of subclinical and undiagnosed overt hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism in adults without goiter or thyroid nodules.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through July 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials and observational studies of screening and treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION

One investigator abstracted data, and a second investigator confirmed; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No study directly assessed benefits and harms of screening versus no screening. For subclinical hypothyroidism (based on thyroid-stimulating hormone levels of 4.1 to 11.0 mIU/L), 1 fair-quality cohort study found that treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism was associated with decreased risk for coronary heart disease events versus no treatment. No study found that treatment was associated with improved quality of life, cognitive function, blood pressure, or body mass index versus no treatment. Effects of treatment versus no treatment showed potential beneficial effects on lipid levels, but effects were inconsistent, not statistically significant in most studies, and of uncertain clinical significance (difference, -0.7 to 0 mmol/L [-28 to 0 mg/dL] for total cholesterol levels and -0.6 to 0.1 mmol/L [-22 to 2 mg/dL] for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels). Treatment harms were poorly studied and sparsely reported. Two poor-quality studies evaluated treatment of subclinical hyperthyroidism but examined intermediate outcomes. No study evaluated treatment versus no treatment of screen-detected, undiagnosed overt thyroid dysfunction.

LIMITATION

English-language articles only, no treatment study performed in the United States, and small trials with short duration that used different dosage protocols.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to determine the clinical benefits associated with thyroid screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Long-Term Opioid Treatment of Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Chronic pain is common and use of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain has increased dramatically. This report reviews the current evidence on effectiveness and harms of opioid therapy for chronic pain, focusing on long-term (≥1 year) outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

A prior systematic review (searches through October 2008), electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Libraries January 2008 to August 2014), reference lists, and clinical trials registries.

REVIEW METHODS

Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized trials and comparative observational studies of patients with cancer or noncancer chronic pain being considered for or prescribed long-term opioid therapy that addressed effectiveness or harms versus placebo, no opioid use, or nonopioid therapies; different opioid dosing methods; or risk mitigation strategies. We also included uncontrolled studies ≥1 year that reported rates of abuse, addiction, or misuse, and studies on the accuracy of risk prediction instruments for predicting subsequent opioid abuse or misuse. The quality of included studies was assessed, data were extracted, and results were summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Of the 4,209 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 39 studies were included. For a number of Key Questions, we identified no studies meeting inclusion criteria. Where studies were available, the strength of evidence was rated no higher than low, due to imprecision and methodological shortcomings, with the exception of buccal or intranasal fentanyl for pain relief outcomes within 2 hours after dosing (strength of evidence: moderate). No study evaluated effects of long-term opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy. In 10 uncontrolled studies, rates of opioid abuse were 0.6 percent to 8 percent and rates of dependence were 3.1 percent to 26 percent in primary care settings, but studies varied in methods used to define and ascertain outcomes. Rates of aberrant drug-related behaviors ranged from 5.7 percent to 37.1 percent. Compared with nonuse, long-term opioid therapy was associated with increased risk of abuse (one cohort study), overdose (one cohort study), fracture (two observational studies), myocardial infarction (two observational studies), and markers of sexual dysfunction (one cross-sectional study), with several studies showing a dose-dependent association. One randomized trial found no difference between a more liberal opioid dose escalation strategy and maintenance of current dose in pain or function, but differences between groups in daily opioid doses at the end of the trial were small. One cohort study found methadone associated with lower risk of mortality than long-acting morphine in a Veterans Affairs population in a propensity adjusted analysis (adjusted HR 0.56, 95 percent CI 0.51 to 0.62). Estimates of diagnostic accuracy for the Opioid Risk Tool were extremely inconsistent and other risk assessment instruments were evaluated in only one or two studies. No study evaluated the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies on outcomes related to overdose, addiction, abuse, or misuse. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy in high-risk patients or in other subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain is very limited but suggests an increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent. More research is needed to understand long-term benefits, risk of abuse and related outcomes, and effectiveness of different opioid prescribing methods and risk mitigation strategies.

Screening for hepatitis B virus infection in adolescents and adults: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection.

PURPOSE

To update the 2004 USPSTF review on screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (through January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of screening and treatment and observational studies of screening or the association between intermediate and clinical outcomes after antiviral therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

One investigator abstracted data, and a second investigator checked them; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No study directly evaluated the effects of screening for HBV infection versus no screening on clinical outcomes. Vaccination against HBV infection was associated with decreased risk in high-risk populations. On the basis of 11 primarily fair-quality trials, antiviral therapy may be more effective than placebo for reducing the risk for clinical outcomes associated with HBV infection. However, differences were not statistically significant. On the basis of 22 primarily fair-quality trials, antiviral therapy was more effective than placebo for various intermediate outcomes, with limited evidence that first-line antiviral agents are superior to lamivudine. Antiviral therapy was associated with a higher risk for withdrawal due to adverse events than placebo, but risk for serious adverse events did not differ.

LIMITATION

Only English-language articles were included, clinical outcome data for antiviral therapies were limited, and several studies were done in countries where the prevalence and natural history of HBV infection differ from those of the United States.

CONCLUSION

Antiviral treatment for chronic HBV infection is associated with improved intermediate outcomes, but more research is needed to understand the effects of screening and subsequent interventions on clinical outcomes and to identify optimal screening strategies.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Pressure ulcer risk assessment and prevention: a systematic comparative effectiveness review

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burdens but may be preventable.

PURPOSE

To review the clinical utility of pressure ulcer risk assessment instruments and the comparative effectiveness of preventive interventions in persons at higher risk.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 through November 2012), CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, grant databases, clinical trial registries, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials and observational studies on effects of using risk assessment on clinical outcomes and randomized trials of preventive interventions on clinical outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Multiple investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

One good-quality trial found no evidence that use of a pressure ulcer risk assessment instrument, with or without a protocolized intervention strategy based on assessed risk, reduces risk for incident pressure ulcers compared with less standardized risk assessment based on nurses' clinical judgment. In higher-risk populations, 1 good-quality and 4 fair-quality randomized trials found that more advanced static support surfaces were associated with lower risk for pressure ulcers compared with standard mattresses (relative risk range, 0.20 to 0.60). Evidence on the effectiveness of low-air-loss and alternating-air mattresses was limited, with some trials showing no clear differences from advanced static support surfaces. Evidence on the effectiveness of nutritional supplementation, repositioning, and skin care interventions versus usual care was limited and had methodological shortcomings, precluding strong conclusions.

LIMITATION

Only English-language articles were included, publication bias could not be formally assessed, and most studies had methodological shortcomings.

CONCLUSION

More advanced static support surfaces are more effective than standard mattresses for preventing ulcers in higher-risk populations. The effectiveness of formal risk assessment instruments and associated intervention protocols compared with less standardized assessment methods and the effectiveness of other preventive interventions compared with usual care have not been clearly established.

Screening for hypertension in children and adolescents to prevent cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of hypertension is increasing in children, and may persist into adulthood. This systematic review was conducted for the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on the effectiveness of screening asymptomatic children and adolescents for hypertension in order to prevent cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified from Medline and the Cochrane Library (through July 2012). We included trials and controlled observational studies in asymptomatic children and adolescents on the effectiveness and harms of screening and treatment, as well as accuracy of blood pressure measurement. One author extracted study characteristics and results, which were checked for accuracy by a second author.

RESULTS

No studies evaluated the effects of screening for hypertension on health outcomes. Two studies of screening tests for elevated blood pressure reported moderate sensitivities (0.65, 0.72) and specificities (0.75, 0.92). Sensitivities and specificities of child hypertension for the later presence of adult hypertension (7 studies) were wide ranging (0-0.63 and 0.77-1.0, respectively), and associations between child hypertension and carotid intima media thickening and proteinuria in young adults (3 studies) were inconsistent. Seven studies reported that drug interventions effectively lowered blood pressure in adolescents over short follow-up periods. No serious treatment-related adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no direct evidence that screening for hypertension in children and adolescents reduces adverse cardiovascular outcomes in adults. Additional studies are needed to improve diagnosis and risk stratification of children with elevated blood pressure and to quantify risks and benefits of interventions.

Behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force determined that evidence was insufficient to recommend behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect.

PURPOSE

To review new evidence on the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and counseling in health care settings for reducing child abuse and neglect and related health outcomes, as well as adverse effects of interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and PsycINFO (January 2002 to June 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the second quarter of 2012), Scopus, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language trials of the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and counseling and studies of any design about adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION

Investigators extracted data about study populations, designs, and outcomes and rated study quality using established criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eleven fair-quality randomized trials of interventions and no studies of adverse effects met inclusion criteria. A trial of risk assessment and interventions for abuse and neglect in pediatric clinics for families with children aged 5 years or younger indicated reduced physical assault, Child Protective Services (CPS) reports, nonadherence to medical care, and immunization delay among screened children. Ten trials of early childhood home visitation reported reduced CPS reports, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and self-reports of abuse and improved adherence to immunizations and well-child care, although results were inconsistent.

LIMITATION

Trials were limited by heterogeneity, low adherence, high loss to follow-up, and lack of standardized measures.

CONCLUSION

Risk assessment and behavioral interventions in pediatric clinics reduced abuse and neglect outcomes for young children. Early childhood home visitation also reduced abuse and neglect, but results were inconsistent. Additional research on interventions to prevent child abuse and neglect is needed.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for HIV in pregnant women: systematic review to update the 2005 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation

BACKGROUND

A 2005 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) review found good evidence that prenatal HIV screening is accurate and can lead to interventions that reduce the risk for mother-to-child transmission.

PURPOSE

To update the 2005 USPSTF review, focusing on previously identified research gaps and new evidence on treatments.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (2004 to June 2012) and the Cochrane Library (2005 to the second quarter of 2012).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials and cohort studies of pregnant women on risk for mother-to-child transmission or harms associated with prenatal HIV screening or antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy.

DATA EXTRACTION

2 reviewers abstracted and confirmed study details and quality by using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No studies directly evaluated effects of prenatal HIV screening on risk for mother-to-child transmission or maternal or infant clinical outcomes. One fair-quality, large cohort study (HIV prevalence, 0.7%) found that rapid testing during labor was associated with a positive predictive value of 90%. New cohort studies of nonbreastfeeding women in the United States and Europe confirm that full-course combination antiretroviral therapy reduces rates of mother-to-child transmission (<1% to 2.4% vs. 9% to 22% with no antiretroviral therapy). New cohort studies found antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy to be associated with increased risk for preterm delivery (<37 weeks' gestation); there were no clear associations with low birthweight, congenital abnormalities, or infant neurodevelopment. Evidence on long-term maternal harms after short-term antiretroviral therapy exposure during pregnancy remains sparse.

LIMITATIONS

Only English-language articles were included. Studies conducted in resource-poor settings may be of limited applicability to screening in the United States.

CONCLUSION

Antiretroviral therapy in combination with avoidance of breastfeeding and elective cesarean section in women with viremia reduces risk for mother-to-child transmission. Use of certain antiretroviral therapy regimens during pregnancy may increase risk for preterm delivery.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for HIV: systematic review to update the 2005 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation

BACKGROUND

A 2005 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) review found good evidence that HIV screening is accurate and that antiretroviral therapy (ART) for immunologically advanced disease is associated with substantial clinical benefits, but insufficient evidence to determine the effects on transmission or in less immunologically advanced disease.

PURPOSE

To update the 2005 USPSTF review on benefits and harms of HIV screening in adolescents and adults, focusing on research gaps identified in the prior review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (2004 to June 2012) and the Cochrane Library (through the second quarter of 2012).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials and observational studies that compared HIV screening strategies and reported clinical outcomes, evaluated the effects of starting ART at different CD4 cell count thresholds and long-term harms, or reported the effects of interventions on transmission risk.

DATA EXTRACTION

2 authors abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No study directly evaluated the effects on clinical outcomes of screening versus no screening for HIV infection. A randomized trial and a subgroup analysis from a randomized trial found that ART initiation at CD4 counts less than 0.250 × 109 cells/L was associated with a higher risk for death or AIDS-defining events than initiation at CD4 counts greater than 0.350 × 109 cells/L (hazard ratios, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5] and 5.3 [CI, 1.3 to 9.6]). Large, fair-quality cohort studies also consistently found that ART initiation at CD4 counts of 0.350 to 0.500 × 109 cells/L was associated with lower risk for death or AIDS-defining events than delayed initiation. New evidence from good-quality cohorts with longer-term follow-up confirms a previously observed small increased risk for cardiovascular events associated with certain antiretrovirals. Strong evidence from 1 good-quality randomized trial and 7 observational studies found that ART was associated with a 10- to 20-fold reduction in risk for sexual transmission of HIV.

LIMITATIONS

Only English-language articles were included. Observational studies were included. Studies done in resource-poor or high-prevalence settings were included but might have limited applicability to general screening in the United States.

CONCLUSION

Previous studies have shown that HIV screening is accurate, targeted screening misses a substantial proportion of cases, and treatments are effective in patients with advanced immunodeficiency. New evidence indicates that ART reduces risk for AIDS-defining events and death in persons with less advanced immunodeficiency and reduces sexual transmission of HIV.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening women for intimate partner violence: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force determined that evidence was insufficient to support screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV).

PURPOSE

To review new evidence on the effectiveness of screening and interventions for women in health care settings in reducing IPV and related health outcomes, the diagnostic accuracy of screening instruments, and adverse effects of screening and interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and PsycINFO (January 2002 to January 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through fourth quarter 2011), Scopus, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language trials of the effectiveness of screening and interventions, diagnostic accuracy studies of screening instruments, and studies of any design about adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION

Investigators extracted data about study populations, designs, and outcomes and rated study quality by using established criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A large fair-quality trial of screening versus usual care indicated reduced IPV and improved health outcomes for both groups, but no statistically significant differences between groups. Fifteen fair- and good-quality studies evaluated 13 screening instruments, and six instruments were highly accurate. Four fair- and good-quality trials of counseling reported reduced IPV and improved birth outcomes for pregnant women, reduced IPV for new mothers, and reduced pregnancy coercion and unsafe relationships for women in family-planning clinics. Fourteen studies indicated minimal adverse effects with screening, but some women experienced discomfort, loss of privacy, emotional distress, and concerns about further abuse.

LIMITATION

Trials were limited by heterogeneity, lack of true control groups, high loss to follow-up, self-reported measures, and lack of accepted reference standards.

CONCLUSION

Screening instruments accurately identify women experiencing IPV. Screening women for IPV can provide benefits that vary by population, while potential adverse effects have minimal effect on most women.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Screening can detect prostate cancer at earlier, asymptomatic stages, when treatments might be more effective.

PURPOSE

To update the 2002 and 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence reviews on screening and treatments for prostate cancer.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (2002 to July 2011) and the Cochrane Library Database (through second quarter of 2011).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of prostate-specific antigen-based screening, randomized trials and cohort studies of prostatectomy or radiation therapy versus watchful waiting, and large observational studies of perioperative harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 5 screening trials, the 2 largest and highest-quality studies reported conflicting results. One found that screening was associated with reduced prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with no screening in a subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years after 9 years (relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; absolute risk reduction, 0.07 percentage point). The other found no statistically significant effect after 10 years (relative risk, 1.1 [CI, 0.80 to 1.5]). After 3 or 4 screening rounds, 12% to 13% of screened men had false-positive results. Serious infections or urine retention occurred after 0.5% to 1.0% of prostate biopsies. There were 3 randomized trials and 23 cohort studies of treatments. One good-quality trial found that prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer decreased risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with watchful waiting through 13 years of follow-up (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.44 to 0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 6.1%). Benefits seemed to be limited to men younger than 65 years. Treating approximately 3 men with prostatectomy or 7 men with radiation therapy instead of watchful waiting would each result in 1 additional case of erectile dysfunction. Treating approximately 5 men with prostatectomy would result in 1 additional case of urinary incontinence. Prostatectomy was associated with perioperative death (about 0.5%) and cardiovascular events (0.6% to 3%), and radiation therapy was associated with bowel dysfunction.

LIMITATIONS

Only English-language articles were included. Few studies evaluated newer therapies.

CONCLUSION

Prostate-specific antigen-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening adults aged 50 years or older for hearing loss: a review of the evidence for the U.S. preventive services task force

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is common in older adults. Screening could identify untreated hearing loss and lead to interventions to improve hearing-related function and quality of life.

PURPOSE

To update the 1996 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence review on screening for hearing loss in primary care settings in adults aged 50 years or older.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1950 and July 2010) and the Cochrane Library (through the second quarter of 2010).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials, controlled observational studies, and studies on diagnostic accuracy were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

Investigators abstracted details about the patient population, study design, data analysis, follow-up, and results and assessed quality by using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Evidence on benefits and harms of screening for and treatments of hearing loss was synthesized qualitatively. One large (2305 participants) randomized trial found that screening for hearing loss was associated with increased hearing aid use at 1 year, but screening was not associated with improvements in hearing-related function. Good-quality evidence suggests that common screening tests can help identify patients at higher risk for hearing loss. One good-quality randomized trial found that immediate hearing aids were effective compared with wait-list control in improving hearing-related quality of life in patients with mild or moderate hearing loss and severe hearing-related handicap. We did not find direct evidence on harms of screening or treatments with hearing aids.

LIMITATION

Non-English-language studies were excluded, and studies of diagnostic accuracy in high-prevalence specialty settings were included.

CONCLUSION

Additional research is needed to understand the effects of screening for hearing loss compared with no screening on health outcomes and to confirm benefits of treatment under conditions likely to be encountered in most primary care settings.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for visual impairment in children ages 1-5 years: update for the USPSTF

CONTEXT

Screening could identify preschool-aged children with vision problems at a critical period of visual development and lead to treatments that could improve vision.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of screening preschool-aged children for impaired visual acuity on health outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Medline from 1950 to July 2009 and the Cochrane Library through the third quarter of 2009, reviewed reference lists, and consulted experts. We selected randomized trials and controlled observational studies on preschool vision screening and treatments, and studies of diagnostic accuracy of screening tests. One investigator abstracted relevant data, and a second investigator checked data abstraction and quality assessments.

RESULTS

Direct evidence on the effectiveness of preschool vision screening for improving visual acuity or other clinical outcomes remains limited and does not adequately address whether screening is more effective than no screening. Regarding indirect evidence, a number of screening tests have utility for identification of preschool-aged children with vision problems. Diagnostic accuracy did not clearly differ for children stratified according to age, although testability rates were generally lower in children 1 to 3 years of age. Treatments for amblyopia or unilateral refractive error were associated with mild improvements in visual acuity compared with no treatment. No study has evaluated school performance or other functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although treatments for amblyopia or unilateral refractive error can improve vision in preschool-aged children and screening tests have utility for identifying vision problems, additional studies are needed to better understand the effects of screening compared with no screening.

Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

This systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening.

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of mammography screening in decreasing breast cancer mortality among average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years and 70 years or older, the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination, and the harms of screening.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials with breast cancer mortality outcomes for screening effectiveness, and studies of various designs and multiple data sources for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated by using established criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% for women aged 39 to 49 years (relative risk, 0.85 [95% credible interval, 0.75 to 0.96]; 8 trials). Data are lacking for women aged 70 years or older. Radiation exposure from mammography is low. Patient adverse experiences are common and transient and do not affect screening practices. Estimates of overdiagnosis vary from 1% to 10%. Younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies than older women. Trials of clinical breast examination are ongoing; trials for breast self-examination showed no reductions in mortality but increases in benign biopsy results.

LIMITATION

Studies of older women, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality for women aged 39 to 69 years; data are insufficient for older women. False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common. No benefit has been shown for clinical breast examination or breast self-examination.

Screening for osteoporosis: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

This review updates evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on osteoporosis screening.

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness and harms of osteoporosis screening in reducing fractures for men and postmenopausal women without known previous fractures; the performance of risk-assessment instruments and bone measurement tests in identifying persons with osteoporosis; optimal screening intervals; and the efficacy and harms of medications to reduce primary fractures.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2009), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2009), reference lists, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials of screening or medications with fracture outcomes published in English; performance studies of validated risk-assessment instruments; and systematic reviews and population-based studies of bone measurement tests or medication harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on patient populations, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results were abstracted, and study quality was rated by using established criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Risk-assessment instruments are modest predictors of low bone density (area under the curve, 0.13 to 0.87; 14 instruments) and fractures (area under the curve, 0.48 to 0.89; 11 instruments); simple and complex instruments perform similarly. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry predicts fractures similarly for men and women; calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography also predicts fractures, but correlation with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is low. For postmenopausal women, bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and estrogen reduce primary vertebral fractures. Trials are lacking for men. Bisphosphonates are not consistently associated with serious adverse events; raloxifene and estrogen increase thromboembolic events; and estrogen causes additional adverse events.

LIMITATION

Trials of screening with fracture outcomes, screening intervals, and medications to reduce primary fractures, particularly those enrolling men, are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Although methods to identify risk for osteoporotic fractures are available and medications to reduce fractures are effective, no trials directly evaluate screening effectiveness, harms, and intervals.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

This systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening.

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of mammography screening in decreasing breast cancer mortality among average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years and 70 years or older, the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and breast self-examination, and the harms of screening.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials with breast cancer mortality outcomes for screening effectiveness, and studies of various designs and multiple data sources for harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant data were abstracted, and study quality was rated by using established criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% for women aged 39 to 49 years (relative risk, 0.85 [95% credible interval, 0.75 to 0.96]; 8 trials). Data are lacking for women aged 70 years or older. Radiation exposure from mammography is low. Patient adverse experiences are common and transient and do not affect screening practices. Estimates of overdiagnosis vary from 1% to 10%. Younger women have more false-positive mammography results and additional imaging but fewer biopsies than older women. Trials of clinical breast examination are ongoing; trials for breast self-examination showed no reductions in mortality but increases in benign biopsy results.

LIMITATION

Studies of older women, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging are lacking.

CONCLUSION

Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality for women aged 39 to 69 years; data are insufficient for older women. False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common. No benefit has been shown for clinical breast examination or breast self-examination.

Screening older adults for impaired visual acuity: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Impaired visual acuity is common in older adults. Screening for impaired visual acuity could lead to interventions to improve vision, function, and quality of life.

PURPOSE

To update the 1996 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence review on benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in primary care settings in adults age 65 years or older.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for studies published in English from 1996 to July 2008.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials and controlled observational studies that directly evaluated screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults were selected. To evaluate indirect evidence on screening, investigators included studies of diagnostic test accuracy and systematic reviews, randomized trials, and controlled observational studies of treatments for uncorrected refractive errors, cataracts, and age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

DATA EXTRACTION

Details were abstracted about the patient sample, study design, data analysis, follow-up, and results. Quality was assessed by using predefined criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Direct evidence on screening and evidence on accuracy of diagnostic tests were synthesized qualitatively. For benefits and harms of treatments, quantitative estimates for treatment effects from good-quality systematic reviews were reported or relative risks using a random-effects model were calculated. Direct evidence shows that screening for vision impairment in older adults in primary care settings is not associated with improved visual or other clinical outcomes and may be associated with unintended harms, such as increased falls. Effective treatments are available for uncorrected refractive error, cataracts, and AMD. A visual acuity test (for example, the Snellen eye chart) is the standard for screening for vision impairment in primary care, but its diagnostic accuracy is uncertain because no studies compare it against a clinically relevant reference standard. There remains no evidence on accuracy of funduscopic examination.

LIMITATIONS

A relatively small number of primary studies and methodological shortcomings made it difficult to reach conclusions with a high degree of confidence. In addition, studies not published in English and studies of community- or home-based screening were not included.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to understand why direct evidence shows no benefits of screening, even though impaired visual acuity is common and effective treatments are available.

Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation

OBJECTIVE

This review is an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force on universal newborn hearing screening to detect moderate-to-severe permanent, bilateral congenital hearing loss. We focus on 3 key questions: (1) Among infants identified by universal screening who would not be identified by targeted screening, does initiating treatment before 6 months of age improve language and communication outcomes? (2) Compared with targeted screening, does universal screening increase the chance that treatment will be initiated by 6 months of age for infants at average risk or for those at high risk? (3) What are the adverse effects of screening and early treatment?

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were searched to identify articles published since the 2002 recommendation. Data from studies that met inclusion criteria were abstracted, and studies were rated for quality with predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

A good-quality retrospective study of children with hearing loss indicates that those who had early versus late confirmation and those who had undergone universal newborn screening versus none had better receptive language at 8 years of age but not better expressive language or speech. A good-quality nonrandomized trial of a large birth cohort indicates that infants identified with hearing loss through universal newborn screening have earlier referral, diagnosis, and treatment than those not screened. These findings are corroborated by multiple descriptive studies of ages of referral, diagnosis, and treatment. Usual parental reactions to an initial nonpass on a hearing screen include worry, questioning, and distress that resolve for most parents. Cochlear implants have been associated with higher risks for bacterial meningitis in young children.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with hearing loss who had universal newborn hearing screening have better language outcomes at school age than those not screened. Infants identified with hearing loss through universal screening have significantly earlier referral, diagnosis, and treatment than those identified in other ways.

Screening adults for type 2 diabetes: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

More than 19 million Americans are affected by type 2 diabetes mellitus, which is undiagnosed in one third of these persons. In addition, it is estimated that more than 54 million adults have prediabetes. Debate continues over the benefits and harms of screening and then treating adults who have asymptomatic diabetes or prediabetes.

PURPOSE

To update the 2003 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on the evidence for potential benefits and harms of screening adults for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies and systematic reviews published in English between March 2001 and July 2007.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials and observational studies that directly addressed the effectiveness and adverse effects of screening interventions were included. Randomized, controlled trials were used to assess the effectiveness of diabetes and prediabetes treatments. For diabetes interventions, trials of patients with disease for 1 year or less were included, as well as trials comparing outcomes among diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant data were abstracted in duplicate into a standardized template.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data were synthesized in a qualitative manner, and a random-effects meta-analysis of the effects of interventions in prediabetes on the incidence of diabetes was performed.

LIMITATIONS

Most of the data on diabetes treatment were not from primary trial data but from subgroup analyses. Participants in intensive lifestyle interventions for prediabetes may not be representative of general prediabetic populations.

CONCLUSION

Direct evidence is lacking on the health benefits of detecting type 2 diabetes by either targeted or mass screening, and indirect evidence also fails to demonstrate health benefits for screening general populations. Persons with hypertension probably benefit from screening, because blood pressure targets for persons with diabetes are lower than those for persons without diabetes. Intensive lifestyle and pharmacotherapeutic interventions reduce the progression of prediabetes to diabetes, but few data examine the effect of these interventions on long-term health outcomes.

Evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and treating pregnant women who are asymptomatic for bacterial vaginosis: an update review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

Bacterial vaginosis is the most common lower genital tract syndrome among women of reproductive age. There has been continued debate about the value of screening and treating asymptomatic pregnant women for bacterial vaginosis.

PURPOSE

To examine new evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and treating bacterial vaginosis in asymptomatic pregnant women.

DATA SOURCES

English-language studies on Ovid MEDLINE (2000 to September 2007) and Cochrane Library databases (through September 2007), reference lists, and expert suggestions.

STUDY SELECTION

Screening, treatment, or adverse effect studies with pregnancy outcome data in women who are asymptomatic for bacterial vaginosis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study and patient characteristics, treatment variables, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and internal validity quality criteria from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and Jadad scale were abstracted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

7 new randomized, controlled treatment trials and 2001 report data were combined in a series of meta-analyses to estimate the pooled effect of treatment on preterm delivery (<37, <34, and <32 weeks); low birthweight; and preterm, premature rupture of membranes.

LIMITATIONS

No screening studies that compared a screened population with a nonscreened population were found. Significant heterogeneity was found among the high-risk treatment trials (P < 0.001). It is not clear from the detailed description of the studies which factors explain the differences in preterm delivery rates and potentially the association of treatment effect; however, both raise concern for the unintended potential for harm.

CONCLUSION

No benefit was found in treating women with low- or average-risk pregnancies for asymptomatic bacterial vaginosis. More research is needed to better understand these groups and the conditions under which treatment can be harmful or helpful, and to explore the relevance of bacterial vaginosis to other adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as delivery before 34 weeks.

Screening and treatment for lipid disorders in children and adolescents: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

OBJECTIVE

This was a systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force, intended to synthesize the published evidence regarding the effectiveness of selecting, testing, and managing children and adolescents with dyslipidemia in the course of routine primary care.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed to identify published articles that addressed 10 key questions. The review focused on screening relevant to primary care of children without previously identified dyslipidemias, but included treatment trials of children with dyslipidemia because some drugs have only been tested in that population.

RESULTS

Normal values for lipids for children and adolescents are defined according to population levels (percentiles). Age, gender, and racial differences and temporal trends may alter these statistical cut points. Approximately 40% to 55% of children with elevated total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels will continue to have elevated lipid levels on follow-up. Current screening recommendations based on family history will fail to detect substantial numbers (30%-60%) of children with elevated lipid levels. Drug treatment for dyslipidemia in children has been studied and shown to be effective only for suspected or proven familial monogenic dyslipidemias. Intensive dietary counseling and follow-up can result in improvements in lipid levels, but these results have not been sustained after the cessation of the intervention. The few trials of exercise are of fair-to-poor quality and show little or no improvements in lipid levels for children without monogenic dyslipidemias. Although reported adverse effects were not serious, studies were generally small and not of sufficient duration to determine long-term effects of either short or extended use.

CONCLUSIONS

Several key issues about screening and treatment of dyslipidemia in children and adolescents could not be addressed because of lack of studies, including effectiveness of screening on adult coronary heart disease or lipid outcomes, optimal ages and intervals for screening children, or effects of treatment of childhood lipid levels on adult coronary heart disease outcomes.

Screening for elevated lead levels in childhood and pregnancy: an updated summary of evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force

BACKGROUND

In 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force provided recommendations for routine screening of asymptomatic children and pregnant women for elevated blood lead levels. This review updates the evidence for the benefits and harms of screening and intervention for elevated blood lead in asymptomatic children and pregnant women.

METHODS

We searched Medline, reference lists of review articles, and tables of contents of leading pediatric journals for studies published in 1995 or later that contained new information about the prevalence, diagnosis, natural course, or treatment of elevated lead levels in asymptomatic children aged 1 to 5 years and pregnant women.

RESULTS

The prevalence of elevated blood lead levels among children and women in the United States, like that in the general population, continues to decline sharply, primarily because of marked reductions in environmental exposure, but still varies substantially among different communities and populations. Similar to the findings in 1996, our searches did not identify direct evidence from controlled studies that screening children for elevated blood lead levels results in improved health outcomes, and there was no direct evidence identified from controlled studies that screening improves pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. No new relevant information regarding the accuracy of screening for lead toxicity was identified during the update, and we did not identify evidence that demonstrates that universal screening for blood lead results in better clinical outcomes than targeted screening. Substantial new relevant information regarding the adverse effects of screening and interventions was not identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no persuasive evidence that screening for elevated lead levels in asymptomatic children will improve clinical outcomes. For those children who are screened and found to have elevated levels, there is conflicting evidence demonstrating the clinical effectiveness of early detection and intervention.