Long COVID Definitions and Models of Care : A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Definitions of long COVID are evolving, and optimal models of care are uncertain. PURPOSE: To perform a scoping review on definitions of long COVID and provide an overview of care models, including a proposed framework to describe and distinguish models. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles from Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, SocINDEX, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL published between January 2021 and November 2023; gray literature; and discussions with 18 key informants. STUDY SELECTION: Publications describing long COVID definitions or models of care, supplemented by models described by key informants. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified for accuracy by another reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1960 screened citations, 38 were included. Five clinical definitions of long COVID varied with regard to timing since symptom onset and the minimum duration required for diagnosis; 1 additional definition was symptom score-based. Forty-nine long COVID care models were informed by 5 key principles: a core "lead" team, multidisciplinary expertise, comprehensive access to diagnostic and therapeutic services, a patient-centered approach, and providing capacity to meet demand. Seven characteristics provided a framework for distinguishing models: home department or clinical setting, clinical lead, collocation of other specialties, primary care role, population managed, use of teleservices, and whether the model was practice- or systems-based. Using this framework, 10 representative practice-based and 3 systems-based models of care were identified. LIMITATIONS: Published literature often lacked key model details, data were insufficient to assess model outcomes, and there was overlap between and variability within models. CONCLUSION: Definitions of long COVID and care models are evolving. Research is needed to optimize models and evaluate outcomes of different models. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (Protocol posted at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/long-covid-models-care/protocol.).

Major Update: Masks for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Health Care and Community Settings-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Optimal use of masks for preventing COVID-19 is unclear. PURPOSE: To update an evidence synthesis on N95, surgical, and cloth mask effectiveness in community and health care settings for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, medRxiv (3 June 2022 to 2 January 2023), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of interventions to increase mask use and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and observational studies of mask use that controlled for potential confounders. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially abstracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three randomized trials and 21 observational studies were included. In community settings, mask use may be associated with a small reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus no mask use, on the basis of 2 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. In routine patient care settings, surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the basis of 1 new randomized trial with some imprecision and 4 observational studies. Evidence from observational studies was insufficient to evaluate other mask comparisons due to methodological limitations and inconsistency. LIMITATION: Few randomized trials, studies had methodological limitations and some imprecision, suboptimal adherence and pragmatic aspects of randomized trials potentially attenuated benefits, very limited evidence on harms, uncertain applicability to Omicron variant predominant era, meta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity, unable to formally assess for publication bias, and restricted to English-language articles. CONCLUSION: Updated evidence suggests that masks may be associated with a small reduction in risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in community settings. Surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar infection risk in routine patient care settings, but a beneficial effect of N95 respirators cannot be ruled out. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Systemic corticosteroids for radicular and non-radicular low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are medications with anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant properties. Systemic corticosteroids administered through the oral, intravenous, or intramuscular routes have been used to treat various types of low back pain, including radicular back pain (not due to spinal stenosis), non-radicular back pain, and spinal stenosis. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid for radicular low back pain, non-radicular low back pain, and symptomatic spinal stenosis in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was September 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials in adults of systematic corticosteroids versus placebo or no corticosteroid. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The major outcomes were pain, function, need for surgery, serious adverse effect, and presence of hyperglycemia. The minor outcomes were quality of life, successful outcomes, non-serious adverse events, and withdrawal due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1047 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Nine trials included participants with radicular low back pain, two trial with low back pain, and two trials with spinal stenosis. All trials blinded participants to receipt of systemic corticosteroids. Seven trials were at low risk of bias, five at unclear risk, and one at high risk of selection bias. Two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. Doses and duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy varied. Radicular low back pain For radicular low back pain, moderate-certainty evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly decrease pain versus placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.56 points better, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 0.04 on a 0 to 10 scale) and may slightly increase the likelihood of experiencing improvement in pain at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.66; absolute effect 5% better (95% CI 5% worse to 15% better). Systemic corticosteroids may not improve function at short-term follow-up (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.14 better; range 0.49 better to 0.21 worse) and probably increase the likelihood of improvement in function at short-term follow-up (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; absolute effect 19% better, 95% CI 8% better to 30% better). Systemic corticosteroids were associated with greater improvement in function versus placebo at long-term follow-up (MD -7.40, 95% CI -12.55 to -2.25 on the 0 to 100 Oswestry Disability Index) and greater likelihood of functional improvement (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56), based on a single trial. There was no difference in likelihood of surgery (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47). Evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids (administered as a single dose or as a short course of therapy) are not associated with increased risk of any adverse event, serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, or hyperglycemia, but estimates were imprecise as some trials did not report harms, and harms reporting was suboptimal in trials that did provide data. Limitations included variability across trials in interventions (e.g. corticosteroid used, dose and duration of treatment), clinical settings, and participants (e.g. duration of symptoms, methods for diagnosis); limited utility of subgroup analyses due to small numbers of trials; methodologic limitations or suboptimal reporting of methods by some trials; and too few trials to formally assess for publication bias using graphical or statistical tests for small sample effects. Non-radicular low back pain Evidence on systemic corticosteroids versus placebo for non-radicular pain was limited and suggested that systemic corticosteroids may be associated with slightly worse short-term pain but slightly better function. Spinal stenosis For spinal stenosis, limited evidence indicated that systemic corticosteroids are probably no more effective than placebo for short-term pain or function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids appear to be slightly effective at improving short-term pain and function in people with radicular low back pain not due to spinal stenosis, and might slightly improve long-term function. The effects of systemic corticosteroids in people with non-radicular low back pain are unclear and systemic corticosteroids are probably ineffective for spinal stenosis. A single dose or short course of systemic corticosteroids for low back pain does not appear to cause serious harms, but evidence is limited.

Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was associated with reduced mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Objective: To update the 2016 review on statins for primary prevention of CVD to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to November 2021); surveillance through May 20, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials on statins vs placebo or no statin and statin intensity in adults without prior cardiovascular events; large cohort studies on harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiovascular outcomes, and adverse events. Results: Twenty-six studies were included: 22 trials (N = 90 624) with 6 months to 6 years of follow-up compared statins vs placebo or no statin, 1 trial (n = 5144) compared statin intensities, and 3 observational studies (n = 417 523) reported harms. Statins were significantly associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.35% [95% CI, -0.57% to -0.14%]), stroke (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.90]; ARD, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.54% to -0.25%]), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.75]; ARD, -0.85% [95% CI, -1.22% to -0.47%]), and composite cardiovascular outcomes (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81]; ARD, -1.28% [95% CI, -1.61% to -0.95%]); the association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.02]; ARD, -0.13%). Relative benefits were consistent in groups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, although data for persons older than 75 years were sparse. Statin therapy was not significantly associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.01]), myalgias (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.11]), or elevated alanine aminotransferase level (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13]). Statin therapy was not significantly associated with increased diabetes risk overall (RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.19]), although 1 trial found high-intensity statin therapy was significantly associated with increased risk (RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.49]). Otherwise, there were no clear differences in outcomes based on statin intensity. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults at increased CVD risk but without prior CVD events, statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and CVD events. Benefits of statin therapy appear to be present across diverse demographic and clinical populations, with consistent relative benefits in groups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics.

Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings : A Living Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary. PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification. DATA SYNTHESIS: 39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common. LIMITATIONS: There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods. CONCLUSION: Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers: A Living Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. PURPOSE: To examine the burden of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV on HCWs and risk factors for infection, using rapid and living review methods. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases, including the WHO database of publications on coronavirus disease and the medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 27 March 2020, with ongoing surveillance through 24 April 2020), and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Studies published in any language reporting incidence of or outcomes associated with coronavirus infections in HCWs and studies on the association between risk factors (demographic characteristics, role, exposures, environmental and administrative factors, and personal protective equipment [PPE] use) and HCW infections. New evidence will be incorporated on an ongoing basis by using living review methods. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; verification was done by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: 64 studies met inclusion criteria; 43 studies addressed burden of HCW infections (15 on SARS-CoV-2), and 34 studies addressed risk factors (3 on SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers accounted for a significant proportion of coronavirus infections and may experience particularly high infection incidence after unprotected exposures. Illness severity was lower than in non-HCWs. Depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were common in HCWs during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The strongest evidence on risk factors was on PPE use and decreased infection risk. The association was most consistent for masks but was also observed for gloves, gowns, eye protection, and handwashing; evidence suggested a dose-response relationship. No study evaluated PPE reuse. Certain exposures (such as involvement in intubations, direct patient contact, or contact with bodily secretions) were associated with increased infection risk. Infection control training was associated with decreased risk. LIMITATION: There were few studies on risk factors for SARS-CoV-2, the studies had methodological limitations, and streamlined rapid review methods were used. CONCLUSION: Health care workers experience significant burdens from coronavirus infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Use of PPE and infection control training are associated with decreased infection risk, and certain exposures are associated with increased risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization.

Screening and Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries in Children Younger Than 5 Years: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: A 2014 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that oral fluoride supplementation and topical fluoride use were associated with reduced caries incidence in children younger than 5 years. Objective: To update the 2014 review on dental caries screening and preventive interventions to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to September 2020); surveillance through July 23, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on screening, preventive interventions, referral to dental care; cohort studies on screening and referral; studies on diagnostic accuracy of primary care oral examination or risk assessment; and a systematic review on risk of fluorosis included in prior USPSTF reviews. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Results: Thirty-two studies (19 trials, 9 observational studies, and 4 nonrandomized clinical intervention studies [total 106 694 participants] and 1 systematic review [19 studies]) were included. No study evaluated effects of primary care screening on clinical outcomes. One study (n = 258) found primary care pediatrician examination associated with a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.91) and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98) for identifying a child with cavities, and 1 study found a risk assessment tool associated with sensitivity of 0.53 and specificity of 0.77 (n = 697, CIs not reported) for a child with future caries. No new trials of dietary fluoride supplementation were identified. For prevention, topical fluoride compared with placebo or no topical fluoride was associated with decreased caries burden (13 trials, n = 5733; mean caries increment [difference in decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces], -0.94 [95% CI, -1.74 to -0.34]) and likelihood of incident caries (12 trials, n = 8177; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95]; absolute risk difference, -7%) in higher-risk populations or settings, with no increased fluorosis risk. Evidence on other preventive interventions was limited (education, xylitol) or unavailable (silver diamine fluoride), and no study directly evaluated primary care dentistry referral vs no referral. Conclusions and Relevance: There was no direct evidence on benefits and harms of primary care oral health screening or referral to dentist. Dietary fluoride supplementation and fluoride varnish were associated with improved caries outcomes in higher-risk children and settings.

Screening for Chlamydial and Gonococcal Infections: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The 2014 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement supported the effectiveness of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in asymptomatic, sexually active women 24 years or younger and in older women at increased risk for infection, although evidence for screening in men was insufficient. Objective: To update the 2014 USPSTF review on screening for chlamydial and gonococcal infection in adults and adolescents, including those who are pregnant. Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (January 1, 2014, through May 28, 2020) with surveillance through May 21, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and observational studies of screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk stratification and alternative screening methods, accuracy of tests, and screening harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Complications of infection; infection transmission or acquisition; diagnostic accuracy of anatomical site-specific testing and collection methods; screening harms. Results: Twenty-seven studies were included (N = 179 515). Chlamydia screening compared with no screening was significantly associated with reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in 2 of 4 trials and with reduced hospital-diagnosed PID (0.24% vs 0.38%); relative risk, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-1.0]), but not clinic-diagnosed PID or epididymitis, in the largest trial. In studies of risk prediction instruments in asymptomatic women, age younger than 22 years demonstrated comparable accuracy to extensive criteria. Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men but lower at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men. Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening for chlamydial infection was significantly associated with a lower risk of PID in young women. Risk prediction criteria demonstrated limited accuracy beyond age. Testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens. Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation.

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.

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

Importance: Illicit drug use is among the most common causes of preventable morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To systematically review the literature on screening and interventions for drug use to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through September 18, 2018; literature surveillance through September 21, 2019. Study Selection: Test accuracy studies to detect drug misuse and randomized clinical trials of screening and interventions to reduce drug use. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers and random-effects meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, drug use and other health, social, and legal outcomes. Results: Ninety-nine studies (N = 84 206) were included. Twenty-eight studies (n = 65 720) addressed drug screening accuracy. Among adults, sensitivity and specificity of screening tools for detecting unhealthy drug use ranged from 0.71 to 0.94 and 0.87 to 0.97, respectively. Interventions to reduce drug use were evaluated in 52 trials (n = 15 659) of psychosocial interventions, 7 trials (n = 1109) of opioid agonist therapy, and 13 trials (n = 1718) of naltrexone. Psychosocial interventions were associated with increased likelihood of drug use abstinence (15 trials, n = 3636; relative risk [RR], 1.60 [95% CI, 1.24 to 2.13]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 9% [95% CI, 5% to 15%]) and reduced number of drug use days (19 trials, n = 5085; mean difference, -0.49 day in the last 7 days [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.13]) vs no psychosocial intervention at 3- to 4-month follow-up. In treatment-seeking populations, opioid agonist therapy and naltrexone were associated with decreased risk of drug use relapse (4 trials, n = 567; RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82]; ARD, -35% [95% CI, -67% to -3%] and 12 trials, n = 1599; RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.85]; ARD, -18% [95% CI, -26% to -10%], respectively) vs placebo or no medication. While evidence on harms was limited, it indicated no increased risk of serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Several screening instruments with acceptable sensitivity and specificity are available to screen for drug use, although there is no direct evidence on the benefits or harms of screening. Pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions are effective at improving drug use outcomes, but evidence of effectiveness remains primarily derived from trials conducted in treatment-seeking populations.

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

Importance: Prenatal screening for HIV can inform use of interventions to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) previously found strong evidence that prenatal HIV screening reduced risk of mother-to-child transmission. The previous evidence review was conducted in 2012. Objective: To update the 2012 review on prenatal HIV screening to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2012 to June 2018, with surveillance through January 2019. Study Selection: Pregnant persons 13 years and older; randomized clinical trials and cohort studies of screening vs no screening; risk of mother-to-child transmission or maternal or infant harms associated with antiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy; screening yield at different intervals or in different risk groups. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mother-to-child transmission; harms of screening and treatment; screening yield. Results: Sixty-two studies were included in this review, including 29 new studies. There remains no direct evidence on effects of prenatal screening vs no screening on risk of mother-to-child HIV transmission, maternal or infant clinical outcomes, or the yield of repeat or alternative screening strategies. New evidence confirms that combination ART is highly effective at reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission, with some new cohort studies reporting rates of mother-to-child transmission less than 1% when combination ART was started early in pregnancy (when begun in first trimester, 0%-0.4%; when begun after first trimester, or at any time if timing of ART initiation not reported, 0.4%-2.8%). New evidence on harms of ART was also largely consistent with the previous review. Evidence from primarily observational studies found prenatal combination ART with a boosted protease inhibitor associated with increased risk of preterm delivery (range, 14.4%-26.1%). For other birth outcomes (low birth weight, small for gestational age, stillbirth, birth defects, neonatal death), results were mixed and depended on the specific antiretroviral drug or drug regimen given and timing of prenatal therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: Combination ART was highly effective at reducing risk of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Use of certain ART regimens during pregnancy was associated with increased risk of harms that may be mitigated by selection of ART regimen. The 2012 review found that avoidance of breastfeeding and cesarean delivery in women with viremia also reduced risk of transmission and that prenatal screening accurately diagnosed HIV infection.

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

Importance: Untreated HIV infection can result in significant morbidity, mortality, and HIV transmission. A 2012 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found antiretroviral therapy (ART) associated with improved clinical outcomes and decreased transmission risk in persons with CD4 cell counts less than 500/mm3. Objective: To update the 2012 review on HIV screening to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2012 to June 2018, with surveillance through January 2019. Study Selection: Nonpregnant individuals 12 years and older; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies of screening vs no screening, alternative screening strategies, earlier vs later initiation of ART, and long-term harms of ART. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, AIDS events, quality of life, function, and HIV transmission; harms of screening and long-term (≥2 years) harms of ART; screening yield. Results: Eighteen new studies (5 RCTs, 11 cohort studies, and 2 systematic reviews; N = 266 563) were included, and 11 studies (2 RCTs and 9 cohort studies; N = 218 542) were carried forward from the prior USPSTF report. No study directly evaluated effects of HIV screening vs no screening on clinical outcomes or harms, or the yield of alternative screening strategies. Two newly identified RCTs conducted completely or partially in low-resource settings found ART initiation at CD4 cell counts greater than 500/mm3 associated with lower risk of a composite outcome of mortality, AIDS-defining events, or serious non-AIDS events (relative risk [RR], 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.63] and RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.35-0.95]); results were consistent with those from a large observational study. Early ART was not associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Early ART initiation was associated with sustained reduction in risk of HIV transmission at 5.5 years (RR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02-0.22] for linked transmission). New evidence regarding the association between abacavir use and risk of cardiovascular events was inconsistent. Certain antiretroviral regimens were associated with increased risk of long-term neuropsychiatric, renal, hepatic, and bone adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: In nonpregnant adolescents and adults there was no direct evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of screening for HIV infections vs no screening, or the yield of repeat or alternative screening strategies. New evidence extends effectiveness of ART to asymptomatic individuals with CD4 cell counts greater than 500/mm3 and shows sustained reduction in risk of HIV transmission at longer-term follow-up, although certain ART regimens may be associated with increased risk of long-term harms.

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

Importance: Effective prevention strategies for HIV infection are an important public health priority. Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) involves use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) daily or before and after sex to decrease risk of acquiring HIV infection. Objective: To synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of PrEP, instruments for predicting incident HIV infection, and PrEP adherence to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and EMBASE through June 2018, with surveillance through January 2019. Study Selection: English-language placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of oral PrEP with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy; studies on the diagnostic accuracy of instruments for predicting incident HIV infection; and studies on PrEP adherence. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data abstraction. Data were pooled using the Dersimonian and Laird random-effects model for effects of PrEP on HIV infection, mortality, and harms. Main Outcomes and Measures: HIV acquisition, mortality, and harms; adherence to PrEP; and diagnostic test accuracy and discrimination. Results: Fourteen RCTs (N = 18 837), 8 observational studies (N = 3884), and 7 studies of diagnostic accuracy (N = 32 279) were included. PrEP was associated with decreased risk of HIV infection vs placebo or no PrEP after 4 months to 4 years (11 trials; relative risk [RR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]; I2 = 67%; absolute risk reduction [ARD], -2.0% [95% CI, -2.8% to -1.2%]). Greater adherence was associated with greater efficacy (RR with adherence ≥70%, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.19-0.39]; I2 = 0%) in 6 trials. PrEP was associated with an increased risk of renal adverse events (12 trials; RR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.18-1.75]; I2 = 0%; ARD, 0.56% [95% CI, 0.09%-1.04%]) and gastrointestinal adverse events (12 trials; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.26-2.11]; I2 = 43%; ARD, 1.95% [95% CI, 0.48%-3.43%]); most adverse events were mild and reversible. Instruments for predicting incident HIV infection had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.49-0.72) and require further validation. Adherence to PrEP in the United States in men who have sex with men varied widely (22%-90%). Conclusions and Relevance: In adults at increased risk of HIV infection, PrEP with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine was associated with decreased risk of acquiring HIV infection compared with placebo or no PrEP, although effectiveness decreased with suboptimal adherence.

Systemic Pharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain. New evidence and medications have now become available. PURPOSE: To review the current evidence on systemic pharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through November 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second verified accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of trials ranged from 9 (benzodiazepines) to 70 (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). New evidence found that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for radiculopathy. For opioids, evidence remains limited to short-term trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess serious harms. Skeletal muscle relaxants are effective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation. Systemic corticosteroids do not seem to be effective. For effective interventions, pain relief was small to moderate and generally short-term; improvements in function were generally smaller. Evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of antiseizure medications. LIMITATIONS: Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses. Only English-language studies were included, many of which had methodological shortcomings. Medications injected for local effects were not addressed. CONCLUSION: Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, primarily short-term effects on pain. New evidence suggests that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: A 2007 American College of Physicians guideline addressed nonpharmacologic treatment options for low back pain. New evidence is now available. PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence on nonpharmacologic therapies for acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (January 2008 through February 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of 9 nonpharmacologic options versus sham treatment, wait list, or usual care, or of 1 nonpharmacologic option versus another. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked abstractions for accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: The number of trials evaluating nonpharmacologic therapies ranged from 2 (tai chi) to 121 (exercise). New evidence indicates that tai chi (strength of evidence [SOE], low) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (SOE, moderate) are effective for chronic low back pain and strengthens previous findings regarding the effectiveness of yoga (SOE, moderate). Evidence continues to support the effectiveness of exercise, psychological therapies, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, spinal manipulation, massage, and acupuncture for chronic low back pain (SOE, low to moderate). Limited evidence shows that acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain (SOE, low). The magnitude of pain benefits was small to moderate and generally short term; effects on function generally were smaller than effects on pain. LIMITATION: Qualitatively synthesized new trials with prior meta-analyses, restricted to English-language studies; heterogeneity in treatment techniques; and inability to exclude placebo effects. CONCLUSION: Several nonpharmacologic therapies for primarily chronic low back pain are associated with small to moderate, usually short-term effects on pain; findings include new evidence on mind-body interventions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42014014735).