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.

Facilitators and Barriers to Expedited Partner Therapy: Results From a Survey of Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Expedited partner therapy (EPT) can prevent transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and reinfection of the index patient. We surveyed family physicians (FPs) in British Columbia to understand their perceptions of barriers and facilitators to EPT use and explored how perceptions varied by demographic and practice characteristics. METHODS: Survey participants were recruited through the Divisions of Family Practice, which include greater than 90% of FPs in British Columbia. Common barriers and facilitators for EPT were identified using descriptive statistics. The association between each EPT barrier and facilitator and demographic and practice characteristics were tested using χ test. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one FPs started the survey, of which 146 (80.7%) answered 10 questions or more and were analyzed. Overall, inaccurate information about sex partners (88 [60.3%] of 146) and medicolegal concerns (87 [59.6%] of 146) were the most common barriers reported. Family physicians in nonurban settings were more likely to identify insufficient time as a barrier compared with FPs in urban settings (P < 0.01). The most common facilitators were having a health care professional for follow-up after prescribing EPT (110 [75.3%] of 146), improved remuneration (93 [63.7%] of 146), clear clinical guidelines around EPT (87/146, 59.6%), and having a legal framework (92 [63.0%] of 146). Family physicians practicing for less than 9 years (the median) were more likely to identify the latter as facilitating EPT compared with FPs practicing for 9 years or longer (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring patients have access to a health care professional for follow-up, improved remuneration, and development of clinical guidelines and a legal framework can support the implementation of EPT. Tools catered to different practice types and contexts may help increase EPT use.

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

IMPORTANCE: A 2013 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening found interferon-based antiviral therapy associated with increased likelihood of sustained virologic response (SVR) and an association between achieving an SVR and improved clinical outcomes. New direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are available. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2013 review on HCV screening to inform the USPSTF. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through February 2019, with surveillance through September 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized treatment studies of HCV screening and DAA therapy; cohort studies on screening, antiviral therapy, and the association between an SVR after antiviral therapy and clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mortality, morbidity, quality of life, screening and treatment harms, and screening diagnostic yield. RESULTS: Eight RCTs of DAA therapy vs placebo or an outdated antiviral regimen, 48 other treatment studies, and 33 cohort studies, with a total of 179 230 participants, were included. No study evaluated effects of HCV screening vs no screening. One new study since the 2013 review (n = 5917) found similar diagnostic yield of risk-based screening (sensitivity, 82%; number needed to screen to identify 1 HCV case, 15) and birth cohort screening (sensitivity, 76%; number needed to screen, 29), assuming perfect implementation. Ten open-label studies (n = 3292) reported small improvements in some quality-of-life and functional outcomes (eg, less than 3 points on the 0 to 100 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summary scales) after DAA treatment compared with before treatment. Two cohort studies (n = 24 686) found inconsistent associations of antiviral therapy vs no therapy with risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Forty-nine treatment studies (n = 10 181) found DAA regimens associated with pooled SVR rates greater than 95% across genotypes, and low short-term rates of serious adverse events (1.9%) and withdrawal due to adverse events (0.4%). An SVR after antiviral therapy was associated with decreased adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (13 studies, n = 36 986; pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.40 [95% CI, 0.28-0.56) and hepatocellular carcinoma (20 studies, n = 84 491; pooled HR, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.38]) vs no SVR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Direct evidence on the effects of HCV screening on clinical outcomes remains unavailable, but DAA regimens were associated with SVR rates greater than 5% and few short-term harms relative to older antiviral therapies. An SVR after antiviral therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with no SVR.

Characteristics of Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men With Multiple Diagnoses of Infectious Syphilis in British Columbia, Canada, 2005-2014.

BACKGROUND: Infectious syphilis has increased substantially over the past decade. Targeting limited public health resources toward subpopulations with multiple reinfections may have a large impact in reducing onward transmission within a community. METHODS: A chart review was conducted for individuals with 4 or more infectious syphilis diagnoses between 2005 and 2014 (the top 1% of all syphilis diagnoses in British Columbia, Canada). We characterized the sociodemographics, partner notification outcomes and social network. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2014, there were 30 individuals with 4 or more syphilis diagnoses, accounting for 139 diagnoses. All were men who have sex with men and 29 (96%) were human immunodeficiency virus-positive. Of the 139 diagnoses, 65% occurred in the early latent stage of infection, 22% in the secondary stage, and 14% in the primary stage. The median number of sexual partners per diagnosis was 5 (range, 1-50). Among the 838 partners reported, 79% were notifiable, 53% were notified, and 23% were reported to be tested or treated. Sexual network mapping showed that almost half of the members of this group could be linked to one another either directly or indirectly via partners over 10 years. Social network mapping demonstrated high connectivity, with 4 venues associated with almost two thirds of the study population. CONCLUSIONS: The connectivity and recurrent diagnoses in this study population suggest potential benefits of targeted interventions to individuals with multiple diagnoses and their partners. Our study highlights the need for enhanced care, increased syphilis testing frequency, and exploring alternative preventative methods among individuals with syphilis rediagnoses to reduce syphilis incidence.

Medication Use for the Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects. Objective: To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women. Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists. Study Selection: Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality. Results: A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication. Conclusions and Relevance: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.

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.

Benefits and Harms of Plant-Based Cannabis for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is available from medical dispensaries for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in many states of the union, yet its efficacy in treating PTSD symptoms remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To identify ongoing studies and review existing evidence regarding the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in treating PTSD in adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews, trials, and observational studies with a control group that reported PTSD symptoms and adverse effects of plant-based cannabis use in adults with PTSD. DATA EXTRACTION: Study data extracted by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewers independently assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence by using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two systematic reviews, 3 observational studies, and no randomized trials were found. The systematic reviews reported insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about benefits and harms. The observational studies found that compared with nonuse, cannabis did not reduce PTSD symptoms. Studies had medium and high risk of bias, and overall evidence was judged insufficient. Two randomized trials and 6 other studies examining outcomes of cannabis use in patients with PTSD are ongoing and are expected to be completed within 3 years. LIMITATION: Very scant evidence with medium to high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of plant-based cannabis preparations in patients with PTSD, but several ongoing studies may soon provide important results. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

The Effects of Cannabis Among Adults With Chronic Pain and an Overview of General Harms: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is increasingly available for the treatment of chronic pain, yet its efficacy remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To review the benefits of plant-based cannabis preparations for treating chronic pain in adults and the harms of cannabis use in chronic pain and general adult populations. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and several other sources from database inception to March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Intervention trials and observational studies, published in English, involving adults using plant-based cannabis preparations that reported pain, quality of life, or adverse effect outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently abstracted study characteristics and assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of evidence using standard criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 27 chronic pain trials, there is low-strength evidence that cannabis alleviates neuropathic pain but insufficient evidence in other pain populations. According to 11 systematic reviews and 32 primary studies, harms in general population studies include increased risk for motor vehicle accidents, psychotic symptoms, and short-term cognitive impairment. Although adverse pulmonary effects were not seen in younger populations, evidence on most other long-term physical harms, in heavy or long-term cannabis users, or in older populations is insufficient. LIMITATION: Few methodologically rigorous trials; the cannabis formulations studied may not reflect commercially available products; and limited applicability to older, chronically ill populations and patients who use cannabis heavily. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that cannabis may alleviate neuropathic pain in some patients, but insufficient evidence exists for other types of chronic pain. Among general populations, limited evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk for adverse mental health effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42016033623).

Screening for vitamin D deficiency: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with adverse health outcomes. PURPOSE: To systematically review benefits and harms of vitamin D screening in asymptomatic adults. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (through the third week of August 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of screening for and treatment of vitamin D deficiency and case-control studies nested within the Women's Health Initiative. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, a second reviewed data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study examined the effects of vitamin D screening versus no screening on clinical outcomes. Vitamin D treatment was associated with decreased mortality versus placebo or no treatment (11 studies; risk ratio [RR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99]), although benefits were no longer seen after trials of institutionalized persons were excluded (8 studies; RR, 0.93 [CI, 0.73 to 1.18]). Vitamin D treatment was associated with possible decreased risk for having at least 1 fall (5 studies; RR, 0.84 [CI, 0.69 to 1.02]) and falls per person (5 studies; incidence rate ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.50 to 0.88]) but not fractures (5 studies; RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.82 to 1.16]). Vitamin D treatment was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk for serious adverse events (RR, 1.17 [CI, 0.74 to 1.84]). LIMITATION: Variability across studies in 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays and baseline levels, treatment doses, use of calcium, and duration of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Treatment of vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic persons might reduce mortality risk in institutionalized elderly persons and risk for falls but not fractures. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Imaging Techniques for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several imaging modalities are available for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PURPOSE: To evaluate the test performance of imaging modalities for HCC. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1998 to December 2014), the Cochrane Library Database, Scopus, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies on test performance of ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second investigator confirmed them; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Few studies have evaluated imaging for HCC in surveillance settings. In nonsurveillance settings, sensitivity for detection of HCC lesions was lower for ultrasonography without contrast than for CT or MRI (pooled difference based on direct comparisons, 0.11 to 0.22), and MRI was associated with higher sensitivity than CT (pooled difference, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.07 to 12]). For evaluation of focal liver lesions, there were no clear differences in sensitivity among ultrasonography with contrast, CT, and MRI. Specificity was generally 0.85 or higher across imaging modalities, but this item was not reported in many studies. Factors associated with lower sensitivity included use of an explanted liver reference standard, and smaller or more well-differentiated HCC lesions. For MRI, sensitivity was slightly higher for hepatic-specific than nonspecific contrast agents. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language articles were included, there was statistical heterogeneity in pooled analyses, and costs were not assessed. Most studies were conducted in Asia and had methodological limitations. CONCLUSION: CT and MRI are associated with higher sensitivity than ultrasonography without contrast for detection of HCC; sensitivity was higher for MRI than CT. For evaluation of focal liver lesions, the sensitivities of ultrasonography with contrast, CT, and MRI for HCC are similar. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. ( PROSPERO: CRD42014007016).

Screening for gonorrhea and Chlamydia: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has supported screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia in asymptomatic, sexually active women (including pregnant women) who are younger than 25 years or at increased risk but not in other patient populations. PURPOSE: To update the 2005 and 2007 systematic reviews for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia in men and women, including pregnant women and adolescents. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1 January 2004 to 13 June 2014), Cochrane databases (May 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: English-language trials and observational studies about screening effectiveness, test accuracy, and screening harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted study data were confirmed by a second investigator, and study quality and applicability were dual-rated using prespecified criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Screening a subset of asymptomatic young women for chlamydia in a good-quality trial did not significantly reduce the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease over the following year (relative risk, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.14 to 1.08]); however, 1 previous trial reported a reduction. An observational study evaluating a risk prediction tool to identify persons with chlamydia in high-risk populations had low predictive ability and applicability. In 10 new studies of asymptomatic patients, nucleic acid amplification tests demonstrated sensitivity of 86% or greater and specificity of 97% or greater for diagnosing gonorrhea and chlamydia, regardless of specimen type or test. LIMITATIONS: There were few relevant studies of screening benefits and harms. Only screening tests and methods cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for current clinical practice were included to determine diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Chlamydia screening in young women may reduce the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease. Nucleic acid amplification tests are accurate for diagnosing gonorrhea and chlamydia in asymptomatic persons. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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.

Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) are associated with increased risks for breast, ovarian, and other types of cancer. PURPOSE: To review new evidence on the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PsycINFO between 2004 and 30 July 2013, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2004 through the second quarter of 2013, Health Technology Assessment during the fourth quarter of 2012, Scopus, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies about accuracy of risk assessment and benefits and harms of genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions to reduce cancer incidence and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual investigators extracted data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results, and a second investigator confirmed key data. Investigators independently dual-rated study quality and applicability by using established criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five referral models accurately estimated individual risk for BRCA mutations. Genetic counseling increased the accuracy of risk perception and decreases the intention for genetic testing among unlikely carriers and cancer-related worry, anxiety, and depression. No trials evaluated the effectiveness of intensive screening or risk-reducing medications in mutation carriers, although false-positive rates, unneeded imaging, and unneeded surgeries were higher with screening. Among high-risk women and mutation carriers, risk-reducing mastectomy decreased breast cancer by 85% to 100% and breast cancer mortality by 81% to 100% compared with women without surgery; risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy decreased breast cancer incidence by 37% to 100%, ovarian cancer by 69% to 100%, and all-cause mortality by 55% to 100%. LIMITATION: The analysis included only English-language articles;efficacy trials in mutation carriers were lacking. CONCLUSION: Studies of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions to reduce cancer and mortality indicate potential benefits and harms that vary according to risk.

Association between knowledge of HIV-positive status or use of antiretroviral therapy and high-risk transmission behaviors: systematic review.

To systematically review the evidence on the association between knowledge of HIV-positive status or use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and high-risk transmission behaviors, we searched Ovid MEDLINE from 2004 to February 2012 and the Cochrane Library Database through the first quarter of 2012. Four observational studies meeting inclusion criteria addressed HIV-positive status and seven addressed the use of ART and effects on behavior. Studies including both average and high-risk populations were conducted in developed countries and were rated at least fair quality. Overall, knowledge of HIV-positive status was associated with less engagement in high-risk transmission behaviors, and the use of ART was not found to increase participation in high-risk transmission behaviors by HIV-positive individuals.

Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Because early-stage lung cancer is associated with lower mortality than late-stage disease, early detection and treatment may be beneficial. PURPOSE: To update the 2004 review of screening for lung cancer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, focusing on screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (2000 to 31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2012), Scopus, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: English-language randomized, controlled trials or cohort studies that evaluated LDCT screening for lung cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted study data about participants, design, analysis, follow-up, and results, and a second reviewer checked extractions. Two reviewers rated study quality using established criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four trials reported results of LDCT screening among patients with smoking exposure. One large good-quality trial reported that screening was associated with significant reductions in lung cancer (20%) and all-cause (6.7%) mortality. Three small European trials showed no benefit of screening. Harms included radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, and a high rate of false-positive findings that typically were resolved with further imaging. Smoking cessation was not affected. Incidental findings were common. LIMITATIONS: Three trials were underpowered and of insufficient duration to evaluate screening effectiveness. Overdiagnosis, an important harm of screening, is of uncertain magnitude. No studies reported results in women or minority populations. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence shows that LDCT screening can reduce lung cancer and all-cause mortality. The harms associated with screening must be balanced with the benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Experiences of baccalaureate nursing students in preceptorship during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to appraise and synthesize current evidence of the clinical experiences of baccalaureate nursing students in preceptorship during the COVID-19 pandemic. INTRODUCTION: Nursing education programs support quality clinical practice learning experiences, which are essential for preparing students for both the current and future workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the health care system and, previous estimates of the global shortage of nurses have now almost doubled. Understanding nursing students' clinical experiences during the pandemic can assist with identifying the needs of the future workforce. Nursing students complete the final practicum, also known as the last clinical, internship, or preceptorship, before they are eligible to apply for licensure. This review seeks to explore these pre-transitional, unprecedented preceptorship experiences during COVID-19 to better understand how to prepare pre-licensure nurses for the altered workforce. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include qualitative studies that address the clinical experiences of undergraduate nursing students in preceptorship during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 until the present. METHODS: The databases to be searched will include CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Embase. Reference lists of included studies will be reviewed to identify additional studies. Gray literature will be searched for via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google, and GreyNet International. Unpublished studies will be searched for on websites, including those of national associations of nursing. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be performed independently by 2 reviewers. The findings will be collated using meta-aggregation to produce comprehensive synthesized findings and a ConQual Summary of Findings. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022328303.

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.

Menopausal hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Menopausal hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions is currently not recommended because of its adverse effects. PURPOSE: To update evidence about the effectiveness of hormone therapy in reducing risk for chronic conditions and adverse effects, and to examine whether outcomes vary among women in different subgroups. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (January 2002 to November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the 3rd quarter of 2011), Scopus, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of menopausal hormone therapy published in English since 2002 that assessed primary prevention of chronic conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators extracted data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and results; 2 investigators independently rated study quality by using established criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: 9 fair-quality trials met the inclusion criteria. The Women's Health Initiative reported most of the results, had 11 years of follow-up, and had data most applicable to postmenopausal women in the United States. It showed that estrogen plus progestin therapy reduced fractures (46 fewer per 10 000 woman-years) and increased invasive breast cancer (8 more per 10 000 woman-years), stroke (9 more per 10 000 woman-years), deep venous thrombosis (12 more per 10 000 woman-years), pulmonary embolism (9 more per 10 000 woman-years), lung cancer death (5 more per 10 000 woman-years), gallbladder disease (20 more per 10 000 woman-years), dementia (22 more per 10 000 woman-years), and urinary incontinence (872 more per 10 000 woman-years). Estrogen-only therapy reduced fractures (56 fewer per 10 000 woman-years), invasive breast cancer (8 fewer per 10 000 woman-years), and death (2 fewer per 10 000 woman-years) and increased stroke (11 more per 10 000 woman-years), deep venous thrombosis (7 more per 10 000 woman-years), gallbladder disease (33 more per 10 000 woman-years), and urinary incontinence (1271 more per 10 000 woman-years). Outcomes did not consistently differ by age or comorbid conditions. LIMITATION: Limitations of the trials included low adherence, high attrition, inadequate power to detect risks for some outcomes, and evaluation of few regimens. CONCLUSION: Estrogen plus progestin and estrogen alone decreased risk for fractures but increased risk for stroke, thromboembolic events, gallbladder disease, and urinary incontinence. Estrogen plus progestin increased risk for breast cancer and probable dementia, whereas estrogen alone decreased risk for breast cancer. 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.

Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for breast cancer specific to women in their 40s could inform screening decisions. PURPOSE: To determine what factors increase risk for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years and the magnitude of risk for each factor. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (January 1996 to the second week of November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (fourth quarter of 2011), Scopus, reference lists of published studies, and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies and systematic reviews of risk factors for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. Additional inclusion criteria were applied for each risk factor. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on participants, study design, analysis, follow-up, and outcomes were abstracted. Study quality was rated by using established criteria, and only studies rated as good or fair were included. Results were summarized by using meta-analysis when sufficient studies were available or from the best evidence based on study quality, size, and applicability when meta-analysis was not possible. Data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were analyzed with proportional hazards models by using partly conditional Cox regression. Reference groups for comparisons were set at U.S. population means. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-six studies provided data for estimates. Extremely dense breasts on mammography or first-degree relatives with breast cancer were associated with at least a 2-fold increase in risk for breast cancer. Prior breast biopsy, second-degree relatives with breast cancer, or heterogeneously dense breasts were associated with a 1.5- to 2.0-fold increased risk; current use of oral contraceptives, nulliparity, and age 30 years or older at first birth were associated with a 1.0- to 1.5-fold increased risk. LIMITATIONS: Studies varied by measures, reference groups, and adjustment for confounders, which could bias combined estimates. Effects of multiple risk factors were not considered. CONCLUSION: Extremely dense breasts and first-degree relatives with breast cancer were each associated with at least a 2-fold increase in risk for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. Identification of these risk factors may be useful for personalized mammography screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.