Cannabis Use in Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To determine whether prenatal cannabis use alone increases the likelihood of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Study Design: We searched bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar from inception through February 14, 2022. Cohort or case-control studies with prespecified fetal or neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with prenatal cannabis use. Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB; <37 weeks of gestation), small-for-gestational-age (SGA), birthweight (grams), and perinatal mortality. Two independent reviewers screened studies. Studies were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second using a predefined template. Risk of bias assessment of studies, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for evaluating the certainty of evidence for select outcomes were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, using adjusted and unadjusted effect estimates, to compare groups according to prenatal exposure to cannabis use status. Results: Fifty-three studies were included. Except for birthweight, unadjusted and adjusted meta-analyses had similar results. We found very-low- to low-certainty evidence that cannabis use during pregnancy was significantly associated with greater odds of PTB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.69; I2, 93%; p=0.0001), SGA (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.05; I2, 86%; p<0.0001), and perinatal mortality (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.62; I2, 0%; p<0.0001), but not significantly different for birthweight (mean difference, -40.69 g; 95% CI, -124.22 to 42.83; I2, 85%; p=0.29). Because of substantial heterogeneity, we also conducted a narrative synthesis and found comparable results to meta-analyses. Conclusion: Prenatal cannabis use was associated with greater odds of PTB, SGA, and perinatal mortality even after accounting for prenatal tobacco use. However, our confidence in these findings is limited. Limitations of most existing studies was the failure to not include timing or quantity of cannabis use. This review can help guide health care providers with counseling, management, and addressing the limited existing safety data. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020172343.

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.

Behavioral Counseling to Promote a Healthy Diet and Physical Activity for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Adults With Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the US, and poor diet and lack of physical activity are major factors contributing to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Objective: To review the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to improve diet and physical activity in adults with cardiovascular risk factors. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 2019; literature surveillance through July 24, 2020. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of behavioral counseling interventions to help people with elevated blood pressure or lipid levels improve their diet and increase physical activity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted from studies by one reviewer and checked by a second. Random-effects meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis were used. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular events, mortality, subjective well-being, cardiovascular risk factors, diet and physical activity measures (eg, minutes of physical activity, meeting physical activity recommendations), and harms. Interventions were categorized according to estimated contact time as low (≤30 minutes), medium (31-360 minutes), and high (>360 minutes). Results: Ninety-four RCTs were included (N = 52 174). Behavioral counseling interventions involved a median of 6 contact hours and 12 sessions over the course of 12 months and varied in format and dietary recommendations; only 5% addressed physical activity alone. Interventions were associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events (pooled relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.87]; 9 RCTs [n = 12 551]; I2 = 0%). Event rates were variable; in the largest trial (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea [PREDIMED]), 3.6% in the intervention groups experienced a cardiovascular event, compared with 4.4% in the control group. Behavioral counseling interventions were associated with small, statistically significant reductions in continuous measures of blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, fasting glucose levels, and adiposity at 12 to 24 months' follow-up. Measurement of diet and physical activity was heterogeneous, and evidence suggested small improvements in diet consistent with the intervention recommendation targets but mixed findings and a more limited evidence base for physical activity. Adverse events were rare, with generally no group differences in serious adverse events, any adverse events, hospitalizations, musculoskeletal injuries, or withdrawals due to adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Medium- and high-contact multisession behavioral counseling interventions to improve diet and increase physical activity for people with elevated blood pressure and lipid levels were effective in reducing cardiovascular events, blood pressure, low-density lipoproteins, and adiposity-related outcomes, with little to no risk of serious harm.

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.