Screening for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a leading cause of pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To conduct a targeted systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between January 1, 2014, and January 4, 2022; surveillance through February 21, 2023. Study Selection: English-language comparative effectiveness studies comparing screening strategies in pregnant or postpartum individuals. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised articles and extracted relevant data from fair-or good-quality studies; no quantitative synthesis was conducted. Main outcomes and measures: Morbidity or mortality, measures of health-related quality of life. Results: The review included 6 fair-quality studies (5 trials and 1 nonrandomized study; N = 10 165) comparing changes in prenatal screening practices with usual care, which was routine screening at in-person office visits. No studies addressed screening for new-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the postpartum period. One trial (n = 2521) evaluated home blood pressure measurement as a supplement to usual care; 3 trials (total n = 5203) evaluated reduced prenatal visit schedules. One study (n = 2441) evaluated proteinuria screening conducted only for specific clinical indications, compared with a historical control group that received routine proteinuria screening. One additional trial (n = 80) only addressed the comparative harms of home blood pressure measurement. The studies did not report statistically significant differences in maternal and infant complications with alternate strategies compared with usual care; however, estimates were imprecise for serious, rare health outcomes. Home blood pressure measurement added to prenatal care visits was not associated with earlier diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (104.3 vs 106.2 days), and incidence was not different between groups in 3 trials of reduced prenatal visit schedules. No harms of the different screening strategies were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: This review did not identify evidence that any alternative screening strategies for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were more effective than routine blood pressure measurement at in-person prenatal visits. Morbidity and mortality from hypertensive disorders of pregnancy can be prevented, yet American Indian/Alaska Native persons and Black persons experience inequitable rates of adverse outcomes. Further research is needed to identify screening approaches that may lead to improved disease detection and health outcomes.

Anxiety Screening: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Anxiety is commonly seen in primary care and associated with substantial burden. Objective: To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for anxiety and the accuracy of instruments to detect anxiety among primary care patients. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022. Study Selection: English-language original studies and systematic reviews of screening or treatment compared with control conditions and test accuracy studies of a priori-selected screening instruments were included. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Meta-analysis results were included from existing systematic reviews where available; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Anxiety and depression outcomes; global quality of life and functioning; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools. Results: Of the 59 publications included, 40 were original studies (N = 275 489) and 19 were systematic reviews (including ≈483 studies [N≈81 507]). Two screening studies found no benefit for screening for anxiety. Among test accuracy studies, only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) GAD-2 and GAD-7 screening instruments were evaluated by more than 1 study. Both screening instruments had adequate accuracy for detecting generalized anxiety disorder (eg, across 3 studies the GAD-7 at a cutoff of 10 had a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94] and specificity of 0.89 [95% CI, 0.83 to 0.94]). Evidence was limited for other instruments and other anxiety disorders. A large body of evidence supported the benefit of treatment for anxiety. For example, psychological interventions were associated with a small pooled standardized mean difference of -0.41 in anxiety symptom severity in primary care patients with anxiety (95% CI, -0.58 to -0.23]; 10 RCTs [n = 2075]; I2 = 40.2%); larger effects were found in general adult populations. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits or harms of anxiety screening programs. However, clear evidence exists that treatment for anxiety is beneficial, and more limited evidence indicates that some anxiety screening instruments have acceptable accuracy to detect generalized anxiety disorder.

Depression and Suicide Risk Screening: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Depression is common and associated with substantial burden. Suicide rates have increased over the past decade, and both suicide attempts and deaths have devastating effects on individuals and families. Objective: To review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for depression and suicide risk and the accuracy of instruments to detect these conditions among primary care patients. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Cochrane library through September 7, 2022; references of existing reviews; ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through November 25, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening or treatment compared with control conditions, or test accuracy of screening instruments (for depression, instruments were selected a priori; for suicide risk, all were included). Existing systematic reviews were used for treatment and test accuracy for depression. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Findings were synthesized qualitatively, including reporting of meta-analysis results from existing systematic reviews; meta-analyses were conducted on original research when evidence was sufficient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Depression outcomes; suicidal ideation, attempts, and deaths; sensitivity and specificity of screening tools. Results: For depression, 105 studies were included: 32 original studies (N=385 607) and 73 systematic reviews (including ≈2138 studies [N ≈ 9.8 million]). Depression screening interventions, many of which included additional components beyond screening, were associated with a lower prevalence of depression or clinically important depressive symptomatology after 6 to 12 months (pooled odds ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.50-0.73]; reported in 8 randomized clinical trials [n=10 244]; I2 = 0%). Several instruments demonstrated adequate test accuracy (eg, for the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire at a cutoff of 10 or greater, the pooled sensitivity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89] and specificity was 0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.88]; reported in 47 studies [n = 11 234]). A large body of evidence supported benefits of psychological and pharmacologic treatment of depression. A pooled estimate from trials used for US Food and Drug Administration approval suggested a very small increase in the absolute risk of a suicide attempt with second-generation antidepressants (odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.15]; n = 40 857; 0.7% of antidepressant users had a suicide attempt vs 0.3% of placebo users; median follow-up, 8 weeks). Twenty-seven studies (n = 24 826) addressed suicide risk. One randomized clinical trial (n=443) of a suicide risk screening intervention found no difference in suicidal ideation after 2 weeks between primary care patients who were and were not screened for suicide risk. Three studies of suicide risk test accuracy were included; none included replication of any instrument. The included suicide prevention studies generally did not demonstrate an improvement over usual care, which typically included specialty mental health treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence supported depression screening in primary care settings, including during pregnancy and postpartum. There are numerous important gaps in the evidence for suicide risk screening in primary care settings.

Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To conduct a targeted systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for COPD and the treatment of COPD to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) update of the 2016 recommendation statement on COPD screening. Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL for relevant studies published between January 1, 2015, to January 22, 2021; surveillance through March 25, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening in individuals who do not recognize or report respiratory symptoms; studies of treatment in persons with mild or moderate, or minimally symptomatic, COPD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant data from fair- or good-quality studies; no quantitative synthesis was conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: COPD-related morbidity or mortality, measures of health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Results: The review included no trials on the effectiveness of screening, 3 trials or analyses (n = 20 058) of pharmacologic treatment published since 2015, 13 trials (n = 3657) on nonpharmacologic interventions, and 2 large observational studies (n = 243 517) addressing the harms of pharmacologic treatment published since 2015. The results from the clinical trials of pharmacologic therapy are consistent with the previous review supporting the USPSTF that bronchodilators with or without inhaled corticosteroids can reduce COPD exacerbations and tiotropium can improve health-related quality of life in adults with moderate COPD. Overall, there was no consistent benefit observed for any type of nonpharmacologic intervention across a range of patient outcomes. None of the included treatment trials that reported adverse effects found significant harms. Two large observational studies in a screen-relevant population demonstrated an association of the initiation of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting beta agonist with the risk of a serious cardiovascular event in treatment-naïve patients and an association of inhaled corticosteroids use with the risk of developing diabetes. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this targeted evidence update are generally consistent with the findings of the previous systematic review supporting the 2016 USPSTF recommendation. Evidence of pharmacologic treatment was still largely limited to persons with moderate airflow obstruction, and there was no consistent benefit observed for a range of nonpharmacologic interventions in mild to moderate COPD or in minimally symptomatic persons with COPD.

Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death in the US, and vitamin and mineral supplementation has been proposed to help prevent these conditions. Objective: To review the benefits and harms of vitamin and mineral supplementation in healthy adults to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records only), Cochrane Library, and Embase (January 2013 to February 1, 2022); prior reviews. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of vitamin or mineral use among adults without cardiovascular disease or cancer and with no known vitamin or mineral deficiencies; observational cohort studies examining serious harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative pooling methods appropriate for rare events were used for most analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular disease events, cancer incidence, serious harms. Results: Eighty-four studies (N=739 803) were included. In pooled analyses, multivitamin use was significantly associated with a lower incidence of any cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87-0.99]; 4 RCTs [n=48 859]; absolute risk difference [ARD] range among adequately powered trials, -0.2% to -1.2%) and lung cancer (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.95]; 2 RCTs [n=36 052]; ARD, 0.2%). However, the evidence for multivitamins had important limitations. Beta carotene (with or without vitamin A) was significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; 4 RCTs [n=94 830]; ARD range, -0.1% to 0.6%) and cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.02-1.19]; 5 RCTs [n=94 506] ARD range, -0.8% to 0.8%). Vitamin D use was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91-1.02]; 27 RCTs [n=117 082]), cardiovascular disease (eg, composite cardiovascular disease event outcome: OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.05]; 7 RCTs [n=74 925]), or cancer outcomes (eg, any cancer incidence: OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; 19 RCTs [n=86 899]). Vitamin E was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.97-1.07]; 9 RCTs [n=107 772]), cardiovascular disease events (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04]; 4 RCTs [n=62 136]), or cancer incidence (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; 5 RCTs [n=76 777]). Evidence for benefit of other supplements was equivocal, minimal, or absent. Limited evidence suggested some supplements may be associated with higher risk of serious harms (hip fracture [vitamin A], hemorrhagic stroke [vitamin E], and kidney stones [vitamin C, calcium]). Conclusions and Relevance: Vitamin and mineral supplementation was associated with little or no benefit in preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death, with the exception of a small benefit for cancer incidence with multivitamin use. Beta carotene was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and other harmful outcomes in persons at high risk of lung cancer.

Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product. Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and electronic cigarettes for tobacco cessation among adults, including pregnant persons, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, PsycInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment; surveillance through September 25, 2020. Study Selection: Systematic reviews of tobacco cessation interventions and randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or pharmacotherapy among pregnant persons. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; qualitative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes, tobacco cessation at 6 months or more, and adverse events. Results: Sixty-seven reviews addressing pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions were included as well as 9 trials (N = 3942) addressing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and 7 trials (N = 2285) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use in pregnancy. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.98]), NRT (RR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]), bupropion (RR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.52-1.77]), varenicline (RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.06-2.43]), and behavioral interventions such as advice from clinicians (RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58-1.96]) were all associated with increased quit rates compared with minimal support or placebo at 6 months or longer. None of the drugs were associated with serious adverse events. Five trials (n = 3117) reported inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months among smokers when compared with placebo or NRT, and none suggested higher rates of serious adverse events. Among pregnant persons, behavioral interventions were associated with greater smoking cessation during late pregnancy (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]), compared with no intervention. Rates of validated cessation among pregnant women allocated to NRT compared with placebo were not significantly different (pooled RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.79-1.56], n = 2033). Conclusions and Relevance: There is strong evidence that a range of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, both individually and in combination, are effective in increasing smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults. In pregnancy, behavioral interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but data are limited on the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among adults are also limited and results are inconsistent.

Aspirin Use to Prevent Preeclampsia and Related Morbidity and Mortality: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Preeclampsia is a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy that poses serious maternal and infant health risks. Previous systematic reviews have established benefits of low-dose aspirin taken during pregnancy to prevent preeclampsia and its sequelae. Objective: To update evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on effectiveness of aspirin use in preventing preeclampsia in individuals at increased risk based on clinical risk factors or measurements associated with higher disease incidence than in the general population. Data Sources: Studies from previous USPSTF review (2014), literature published January 2013 through May 15, 2020, in MEDLINE, PubMed (for publisher-supplied records only), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Ongoing surveillance through January 22, 2021. Study Selection: Good- and fair-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of low-dose aspirin use during pregnancy to prevent preeclampsia among individuals at increased risk; studies conducted in general populations to evaluate potential harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual article screening and risk-of-bias assessment. Study data abstracted into prespecified forms, checked for accuracy. Random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnosis of preeclampsia; adverse pregnancy health outcomes and complications including eclampsia, perinatal mortality, preterm birth, small for gestational age, and potential bleeding harms or infant/child harms from aspirin exposure. Results: A total of 23 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 26 952) were included; 18 were conducted among participants at increased preeclampsia risk. Aspirin dosages ranged from 50 mg/d to 150 mg/d. Most trials enrolled majority White populations selected based on a range of risk factors. The incidence of preeclampsia among the trials of participants at increased risk ranged from 4% to 30%. Aspirin use was significantly associated with lower risk of preeclampsia (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95]; 16 RCTs [n = 14 093]; I2 = 0%), perinatal mortality (pooled RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66-0.96]; 11 RCTs [n = 13 860]; I2 = 0%), preterm birth (pooled RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]; 13 RCTs [n = 13 619]; I2 = 49%), and intrauterine growth restriction (pooled RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68-0.99]; 16 RCTs [n = 14 385]; I2 = 41%). There were no significant associations of aspirin use with risk of postpartum hemorrhage (pooled RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.94-1.12]; 9 RCTs [n = 23 133]; I2 = 0%) and other bleeding-related harms, or with rare perinatal or longer-term harms. Absolute risk reductions for preeclampsia associated with aspirin use ranged from -1% to -6% across larger trials (n >300) and were greater in smaller trials. For perinatal mortality, absolute risk reductions ranged from 0.5% to 1.1% in the 3 largest trials. Conclusions and Relevance: Daily low-dose aspirin during pregnancy was associated with lower risks of serious perinatal outcomes for individuals at increased risk for preeclampsia, without evident harms.

Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Early identification of cognitive impairment may improve patient and caregiver health outcomes. Objective: To systematically review the test accuracy of cognitive screening instruments and benefits and harms of interventions to treat cognitive impairment in older adults (≥65 years) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2019, with literature surveillance through November 22, 2019. Study Selection: Fair- to good-quality English-language studies of cognitive impairment screening instruments, and pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments aimed at persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild to moderate dementia, or their caregivers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; random-effects meta-analyses and qualitative synthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity; patient, caregiver, and clinician decision-making; patient function, quality of life, and neuropsychiatric symptoms; caregiver burden and well-being. Results: The review included 287 studies with more than 280 000 older adults. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). Fifty-nine studies (n = 38 531) addressed the accuracy of 49 screening instruments to detect cognitive impairment. The Mini-Mental State Examination was the most-studied instrument, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.92) and specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.93) to detect dementia using a cutoff of 23 or less or 24 or less (15 studies, n = 12 796). Two hundred twenty-four RCTs and 3 observational studies including more than 240 000 patients or caregivers addressed the treatment of MCI or mild to moderate dementia. None of the treatment trials were linked with a screening program; in all cases, participants were persons with known cognitive impairment. Medications approved to treat Alzheimer disease (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) improved scores on the ADAS-Cog 11 by 1 to 2.5 points over 3 months to 3 years. Psychoeducation interventions for caregivers resulted in a small benefit for caregiver burden (standardized mean difference, -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.13) over 3 to 12 months. Intervention benefits were small and of uncertain clinical importance. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening instruments can adequately detect cognitive impairment. There is no empirical evidence, however, that screening for cognitive impairment improves patient or caregiver outcomes or causes harm. It remains unclear whether interventions for patients or caregivers provide clinically important benefits for older adults with earlier detected cognitive impairment or their caregivers.

Anti-legal attitude toward abortion among abortion patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of believing that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases among women obtaining an abortion in the United States and to identify correlates of holding this belief. METHODS: Study population was drawn from the nationally-representative 2008 Abortion Patient Survey. The primary outcome was having an anti-legal abortion attitude, defined as agreeing that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. We assessed potential correlates in bivariable and multivariable analyses using weights to account for the complex sampling. RESULTS: A total of 4769 abortion patients completed the survey module containing the question on abortion legality, of which 4492 (94.2%) had non-missing data for the outcome. Overall, 4.1% of patients (N=183) reported an anti-legal abortion attitude. Correlates of having anti-legal attitude included being married, at <200% federal poverty level, fundamentalist, contraception non-use, no abortion history, perceiving the pregnancy with ambivalence or as unintended, and using misoprostol or another product on their own to bring back their period or end the pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion patients who do not believe abortion should be legal appear to differ substantially from women who are more supportive of legality. Findings raise important questions about this subset of patients, including whether possible discordance between patient beliefs and behavior could influence their use of medical abortion or other products. IMPLICATIONS: Some abortion patients do not agree with abortion legality, and this subset could experience a degree of cognitive dissonance, which could influence the method by which they seek to abort.