Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Type 2 diabetes is common and is a leading cause of morbidity and disability. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for prediabetes and diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through September 2019; references; and experts; literature surveillance through May 21, 2021. Study Selection: English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when at least 3 similar studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms. Results: The review included 89 publications (N = 68 882). Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (25 120 participants) found no significant difference between screening and control groups for all-cause or cause-specific mortality at 10 years. For harms (eg, anxiety or worry), the trials reported no significant differences between screening and control groups. For recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, 5 RCTs (5138 participants) were included. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, health outcomes were improved with intensive glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin. For example, for all-cause mortality the relative risk (RR) was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96) over 20 years (10-year posttrial assessment). For overweight persons, intensive glucose control with metformin improved health outcomes at the 10-year follow-up (eg, all-cause mortality: RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.91]), and benefits were maintained longer term. Lifestyle interventions (most involving >360 minutes) for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes were associated with reductions in the incidence of diabetes (23 RCTs; pooled RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.88]). Lifestyle interventions were also associated with improved intermediate outcomes, such as reduced weight, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (pooled weighted mean difference, -1.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.8] and -1.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4], respectively). Metformin was associated with a significant reduction in diabetes incidence (pooled RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83]) and reduction in weight and body mass index. Conclusions and Relevance: Trials of screening for diabetes found no significant mortality benefit but had insufficient data to assess other health outcomes; evidence on harms of screening was limited. For persons with recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, interventions improved health outcomes; for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes, interventions were associated with reduced incidence of diabetes and improvement in other intermediate outcomes.

Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results: This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

REPRINT OF: Current Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A Review of the Process.

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3S):21-35. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF/Task Force) represents one of several efforts to take a more evidence-based approach to the development of clinical practice guidelines. As methods have matured for assembling and reviewing evidence and for translating evidence into guidelines, so too have the methods of the USPSTF. This paper summarizes the current methods of the third USPSTF, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and two of the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). The Task Force limits the topics it reviews to those conditions that cause a large burden of suffering to society and that also have available a potentially effective preventive service. It focuses its reviews on the questions and evidence most critical to making a recommendation. It uses analytic frameworks to specify the linkages and key questions connecting the preventive service with health outcomes. These linkages, together with explicit inclusion criteria, guide the literature searches for admissible evidence. Once assembled, admissible evidence is reviewed at three strata: (1) the individual study, (2) the body of evidence concerning a single linkage in the analytic framework, and (3) the body of evidence concerning the entire preventive service. For each stratum, the Task Force uses explicit criteria as general guidelines to assign one of three grades of evidence: good, fair, or poor. Good or fair quality evidence for the entire preventive service must include studies of sufficient design and quality to provide an unbroken chain of evidence-supported linkages, generalizable to the general primary care population, that connect the preventive service with health outcomes. Poor evidence contains a formidable break in the evidence chain such that the connection between the preventive service and health outcomes is uncertain. For services supported by overall good or fair evidence, the Task Force uses outcomes tables to help categorize the magnitude of benefits, harms, and net benefit from implementation of the preventive service into one of four categories: substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative. The Task Force uses its assessment of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit to make a recommendation, coded as a letter: from A (strongly recommended) to D (recommend against). It gives an I recommendation in situations in which the evidence is insufficient to determine net benefit. The third Task Force and the EPCs will continue to examine a variety of methodologic issues and document work group progress in future communications.

Invited Commentary: Beyond Overdiagnosis-Diagnosis Without Benefit.

In an accompanying article, Hofmann (Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(10):1812-1817) seeks to clarify the concept of overdiagnosis by screening. He makes a helpful suggestion to reconnect diagnosis with patient suffering, pointing out the underlying issue in overdiagnosis of prognostic uncertainty. He then divides prognostic uncertainty into developmental and progression uncertainty, using a categorical model of disease progression through indicators to manifest disease. This model could be improved by considering the heterogeneity of patient-condition combinations. This leads to an understanding of the probabilistic nature of the connection between any indicator in a specific individual and patient suffering. The model also needs to consider the time span over which the patient-condition combination leads to patient suffering. I propose a simpler approach that goes further to focus not only on overdiagnosis but also on the broader problem of diagnosis without benefit and diagnosis without net benefit. This makes measurement easier and focuses attention where it belongs: on the harm caused by overly aggressive screening programs.

Exploring factors that might influence primary-care provider discussion of and recommendation for prostate and colon cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Primary-care providers may contribute to the use of low-value cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine circumstances under which primary-care providers would discuss and recommend two types of cancer screening services across a spectrum of net benefit and other factors known to influence screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross sectional survey of 126 primary-care providers in 24 primary-care clinics in the US. Participants completed surveys with two hypothetical screening scenarios for prostate or colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients in the scenarios varied by age and screening-request status. For each scenario, providers indicated whether they would discuss and recommend screening. Providers also reported on their screening attitudes and the influence of other factors known to affect screening (short patient visits, worry about lawsuits, clinical reminders/performance measures, and screening guidelines). We examined associations between providers' attitudes and their screening recommendations for hypothetical 90-year-olds (the lowest-value screening). RESULTS: Providers reported they would discuss cancer screening more often than they would recommend it (P<0.001). More providers would discuss and recommend screening for CRC than prostate cancer (P<0.001), for younger than older patients (P<0.001), and when the patient requested it than when not (P<0.001). For a 90-year-old patient, every point increase in cancer-specific screening attitude increased the likelihood of a screening recommendation (30% for prostate cancer and 30% for CRC). DISCUSSION: While most providers' reported practice patterns aligned with net benefit, some providers would discuss and recommend low-value cancer screening, particularly when faced with a patient request. CONCLUSION: More work appears to be needed to help providers to discuss and recommend screening that aligns with value.

A pre-post study testing a lung cancer screening decision aid in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients. METHODS: We conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55-80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0-9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months. RESULTS: Among 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: In primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

Individualized Approach to Cancer Screening in Older Adults.

The primary goal of cancer screening is early detection of cancer to reduce cancer-specific mortality and morbidity. The benefits of screening in older adults are uncertain due to paucity of evidence. Extrapolating data from younger populations, evidence suggests that the benefit occurs years later from the time of initial screening and therefore may not be applicable in those older adults with limited life expectancy. Contrast this with the harms of screening, which are more immediate and increase with age and comorbidities. An individualized approach to cancer screening takes these factors into consideration, allowing for thoughtful decision making for older adults.

Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Methods for Understanding Certainty and Net Benefit When Making Recommendations.

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has developed and used rigorous methods to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services to promote health and well-being for all Americans. Recommendations are based on the evidence of magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms). Expert opinion is not substituted when evidence is lacking. Evidence gaps are common. Few preventive services are supported by high-quality studies that directly and comprehensively determine the overall magnitude of benefits and harms in the same study. When assessing the body of evidence, studies may not have been conducted in primary care settings, studies may not have sufficiently included populations of interest, and long-term outcomes may not have been directly assessed. When direct evidence is not available, the USPSTF uses the methodologies of applicability to determine whether evidence can be generalized to an asymptomatic primary care population; coherence to link bodies of evidence and create an indirect evidence pathway; extrapolation to make inferences across the indirect evidence pathway, extend evidence to populations not specifically studied, consider service delivery intervals, and infer long-term outcomes; and conceptual bounding to set theoretical lower or upper limits for plausible benefits or harms. The USPSTF extends the evidence only so far as to maintain at least moderate certainty that its findings are preserved. This manuscript details with examples of how the USPSTF uses these methods to make recommendations that truly reflect the evidence.

Evaluating Evidence on Intermediate Outcomes: Considerations for Groups Making Healthcare Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Groups making recommendations need evidence about whether preventive services improve health outcomes (HOs). When such evidence is not available, groups may choose to evaluate evidence about effects on intermediate outcomes (IOs) and the link between IOs and HOs. This paper aims to describe considerations for assessing the evidence linking changes in IOs to changes in HOs. METHODS: Working definitions of IOs, HOs, and other outcomes were developed. All current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations through April 2016 were examined to identify how evidence of the IO-HO link was gathered and the criteria that appeared to be used to determine the adequacy of the evidence. Methods of other expert and recommendation-making groups were also examined. RESULTS: Forty-four USPSTF recommendations involved a relevant IO-HO link. The approaches used most commonly to gather evidence about the link were selected review (19 of 44, 43%) and systematic review (12 of 44, 27%). Some key considerations when assessing the adequacy of evidence about the IO-HO link include adjustment for confounding, proximity of the IO to the HO in the causal pathway, and independence of IO-HO relationship from specific treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations were identified for recommendation-making groups to use when gathering and assessing the adequacy of evidence about the IO-HO link. Using a standard set of written principles could improve the transparency of assessments of the IO-HO link, especially if used together with judgment in a reasoned conjecture and refutation process. Ideally, the process would result in an estimate of the magnitude of change in HOs that is expected for specified changes in IOs.

Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Linking Intermediate Outcomes and Health Outcomes in Prevention.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body of experts who make evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services using a transparent and objective process. Developing recommendations on a clinical preventive service requires evidence of its effect on health outcomes. Health outcomes are symptoms, functional levels, and conditions that affect a patient's quantity or quality of life and are measured by assessments of physical or psychologic well-being. Intermediate outcomes are pathologic, physiologic, psychologic, social, or behavioral measures related to a preventive service. Given the frequent lack of evidence on health outcomes, the USPSTF uses evidence on intermediate outcomes when appropriate. The ultimate goal is to determine precisely a consistent relationship between the direction and magnitude of change in an intermediate outcome with a predictable resultant direction and magnitude of change in the health outcomes. The USPSTF reviewed its historical use of intermediate outcomes, reviewed methods of other evidence-based guideline-making bodies, consulted with other experts, and reviewed scientific literature. Most important were the established criteria for causation, tenets of evidence-based medicine, and consistency with its current standards. Studies that follow participants over time following early treatment, stratify patients according to treatment response, and adjust for important confounders can provide useful information about the association between intermediate and health outcomes. However, such studies remain susceptible to residual confounding. The USPSTF will exercise great caution when making a recommendation that depends on the evidence linking intermediate and health outcomes because of inherent evidence limitations.

Do psychological harms result from being labelled with an unexpected diagnosis of abdominal aortic aneurysm or prostate cancer through screening? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A potential psychological harm of screening is unexpected diagnosis-labelling. We need to know the frequency and severity of this harm to make informed decisions about screening. We asked whether current evidence allows an estimate of any psychological harm of labelling. As case studies, we used two conditions for which screening is common: prostate cancer (PCa) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched the English language literature in PubMed, PsychINFO and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for research of any design published between 1 January 2002 and 23 January 2017 that provided valid data about the psychological state of people recently diagnosed with early stage PCa or AAA. Two authors independently used explicit criteria to review and critically appraise all studies for bias, applicability and the extent to which it provided evidence about the frequency and severity of harm from labelling. RESULTS: 35 quantitative studies (30 of PCa and 5 of AAA) met our criteria, 17 (48.6%) of which showed possible or definite psychological harm from labelling. None of these studies, however, had either appropriate measures or relevant comparisons to estimate the frequency and severity of psychological harm. Four PCa and three AAA qualitative studies all showed clear evidence of at least moderate psychological harm from labelling. Seven population-based studies found increased suicide in patients recently diagnosed with PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Although qualitative and population-based studies show that at least moderate psychological harm due to screening for PCa and AAA does occur, the current quantitative evidence is insufficient to allow a more precise estimation of frequency and severity. More sensitive measures and improved research designs are needed to fully characterise this harm. In the meantime, clinicians and recommendation panels should be aware of the occurrence of this harm.

Design of a randomized clinical trial of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid to promote appropriate screening in community-dwelling older adults.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate colorectal cancer screening in older adults should be aligned with the likelihood of net benefit. In general, patient decision aids improve knowledge and values clarity, but in older adults, they may also help patients identify their individual likelihood of benefit and foster individualized decision-making. We report on the design of a randomized clinical trial to understand the effects of a patient decision aid on appropriate colorectal cancer screening. This report includes a description of the baseline characteristics of participants. METHODS: English-speaking primary care patients aged 70-84 years who were not currently up to date with screening were recruited into a randomized clinical trial comparing a tailored colorectal cancer screening decision aid with an attention control. The intervention group received a decision aid that included a values clarification exercise and individualized decision-making worksheet, while the control group received an educational pamphlet on safe driving behaviors. The primary outcome was appropriate screening at 6 months based on chart review. We used a composite measure to define appropriate screening as screening for participants in good health, a discussion about screening for patients in intermediate health, and no screening for patients in poor health. Health state was objectively determined using patients' Charlson Comorbidity Index score and age. RESULTS: A total of 14 practices in central North Carolina participated as part of a practice-based research network. In total, 424 patients were recruited to participate and completed a baseline visit. Overall, 79% of participants were White and 58% female, with a mean age of 76.8 years. Patient characteristics between groups were similar by age, gender, race, education, insurance coverage, or work status. Overall, 70% had some college education or more, 57% were married, and virtually all had Medicare insurance (90%). The three primary medical conditions among the cohort were a history of diabetes, pneumonia, and cancer (28%, 26%, and 21%, respectively). CONCLUSION: We designed a randomized clinical trial to test a novel use of a patient decision aid to promote appropriate colorectal cancer screening and have recruited a diverse study population that seems similar between the intervention and control groups. The study should be able to determine the ability of a patient decision aid to increase individualized and appropriate colorectal cancer screening.

Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians.

Description: This guideline updates the 2008 American College of Physicians (ACP) recommendations on treatment of low bone density and osteoporosis to prevent fractures in men and women. This guideline is endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians. Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials; systematic reviews; large observational studies (for adverse events); and case reports (for rare events) that were published between 2 January 2005 and 3 June 2011. The review was updated to July 2016 by using a machine-learning method, and a limited update to October 2016 was done. Clinical outcomes evaluated were fractures and adverse events. This guideline focuses on the comparative benefits and risks of short- and long-term pharmacologic treatments for low bone density, including pharmaceutical prescriptions, calcium, vitamin D, and estrogen. Evidence was graded according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians. The target patient population includes men and women with low bone density and osteoporosis. Recommendation 1: ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment with alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, or denosumab to reduce the risk for hip and vertebral fractures in women who have known osteoporosis. (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: ACP recommends that clinicians treat osteoporotic women with pharmacologic therapy for 5 years. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: ACP recommends that clinicians offer pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates to reduce the risk for vertebral fracture in men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: ACP recommends against bone density monitoring during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period for osteoporosis in women. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). Recommendation 5: ACP recommends against using menopausal estrogen therapy or menopausal estrogen plus progestogen therapy or raloxifene for the treatment of osteoporosis in women. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 6: ACP recommends that clinicians should make the decision whether to treat osteopenic women 65 years of age or older who are at a high risk for fracture based on a discussion of patient preferences, fracture risk profile, and benefits, harms, and costs of medications. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence).

Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain. Methods: Using the ACP grading system, the committee based these recommendations on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials and systematic reviews published through April 2015 on noninvasive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain. Updated searches were performed through November 2016. Clinical outcomes evaluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall function, improvement in health-related quality of life, reduction in work disability and return to work, global improvement, number of back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain. Recommendation 1: Given that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment, clinicians and patients should select nonpharmacologic treatment with superficial heat (moderate-quality evidence), massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). If pharmacologic treatment is desired, clinicians and patients should select nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or skeletal muscle relaxants (moderate-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). Recommendation 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially select nonpharmacologic treatment with exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction (moderate-quality evidence), tai chi, yoga, motor control exercise, progressive relaxation, electromyography biofeedback, low-level laser therapy, operant therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, or spinal manipulation (low-quality evidence). (Grade: strong recommendation). Recommendation 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to nonpharmacologic therapy, clinicians and patients should consider pharmacologic treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line therapy, or tramadol or duloxetine as second-line therapy. Clinicians should only consider opioids as an option in patients who have failed the aforementioned treatments and only if the potential benefits outweigh the risks for individual patients and after a discussion of known risks and realistic benefits with patients. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Many adverse health outcomes are associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Objective: To review primary care-relevant evidence on screening adults for OSA, test accuracy, and treatment of OSA, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 2015, references, and experts, with surveillance of the literature through October 5, 2016. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs); studies evaluating accuracy of screening questionnaires or prediction tools, diagnostic accuracy of portable monitors, or association between apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and health outcomes among community-based participants. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. When multiple similar studies were available, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), AHI, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores, blood pressure, mortality, cardiovascular events, motor vehicle crashes, quality of life, and harms. Results: A total of 110 studies were included (N = 46 188). No RCTs compared screening with no screening. In 2 studies (n = 702), the screening accuracy of the multivariable apnea prediction score followed by home portable monitor testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI ≥30 and ESS score >10) was AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90), respectively, but the studies oversampled high-risk participants and those with OSA and OSA syndrome. No studies prospectively evaluated screening tools to report calibration or clinical utility for improving health outcomes. Meta-analysis found that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with sham was significantly associated with reduction of AHI (weighted mean difference [WMD], -33.8 [95% CI, -42.0 to -25.6]; 13 trials, 543 participants), excessive sleepiness assessed by ESS score (WMD, -2.0 [95% CI, -2.6 to -1.4]; 22 trials, 2721 participants), diurnal systolic blood pressure (WMD, -2.4 points [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.9]; 15 trials, 1190 participants), and diurnal diastolic blood pressure (WMD, -1.3 points [95% CI, -2.2 to -0.4]; 15 trials, 1190 participants). CPAP was associated with modest improvement in sleep-related quality of life (Cohen d, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.42]; 13 trials, 2325 participants). Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) and weight loss programs were also associated with reduced AHI and excessive sleepiness. Common adverse effects of CPAP and MADs included oral or nasal dryness, irritation, and pain, among others. In cohort studies, there was a consistent association between AHI and all-cause mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: There is uncertainty about the accuracy or clinical utility of all potential screening tools. Multiple treatments for OSA reduce AHI, ESS scores, and blood pressure. Trials of CPAP and other treatments have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes, except for modest improvement in sleep-related quality of life.