Screening for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) can progress to active tuberculosis disease, causing morbidity and mortality. Objective: To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening for and treatment of LTBI in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through December 3, 2021; references; experts; literature surveillance through January 20, 2023. Study Selection: English-language studies of LTBI screening, LTBI treatment, or accuracy of the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs). Studies of LTBI screening and treatment for public health surveillance or disease management were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when a sufficient number of similar studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening test accuracy; development of active tuberculosis disease, transmission, quality of life, mortality, and harms. Results: A total of 113 publications were included (112 studies; N = 69 009). No studies directly evaluated the benefits and harms of screening. Pooled estimates for sensitivity of the TST were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87) at the 5-mm induration threshold, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.87) at the 10-mm threshold, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.74) at the 15-mm threshold. Pooled estimates for sensitivity of IGRA tests ranged from 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92). Pooled estimates for specificity of screening tests ranged from 0.95 to 0.99. For treatment of LTBI, a large (n = 27 830), good-quality randomized clinical trial found a relative risk (RR) for progression to active tuberculosis at 5 years of 0.35 (95% CI, 0.24-0.52) for 24 weeks of isoniazid compared with placebo (number needed to treat, 112) and an increase in hepatotoxicity (RR, 4.59 [95% CI, 2.03-10.39]; number needed to harm, 279). A previously published meta-analysis reported that multiple regimens were efficacious compared with placebo or no treatment. Meta-analysis found greater risk for hepatotoxicity with isoniazid than with rifampin (pooled RR, 4.22 [95% CI, 2.21-8.06]; n = 7339). Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly evaluated the benefits and harms of screening for LTBI compared with no screening. TST and IGRAs were moderately sensitive and highly specific. Treatment of LTBI with recommended regimens reduced the risk of progression to active tuberculosis. Isoniazid was associated with higher rates of hepatotoxicity than placebo or rifampin.

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

Importance: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with adverse health outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults or those with unrecognized OSA symptoms to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries through August 23, 2021; surveillance through September 23, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening or treatment of OSA reporting health outcomes or harms, and systematic reviews of treatment reporting changes in blood pressure and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) scores. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of intervention trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep-related and general health-related quality of life (QOL), and harms. Results: Eighty-six studies were included (N = 11 051). No study directly compared screening with no screening. Screening accuracy of the Multivariable Apnea Prediction score followed by unattended home sleep testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI ≥30 and Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] score >10) measured as the area under the curve in 2 studies (n = 702) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90). Five studies assessing the accuracy of other screening tools were heterogeneous and results were inconsistent. Compared with inactive control, positive airway pressure was associated with a significant improvement in ESS score from baseline (pooled mean difference, -2.33 [95% CI, -2.75 to -1.90]; 47 trials; n = 7024), sleep-related QOL (standardized mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.42]; 17 trials; n = 3083), and general health-related QOL measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) mental health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.95 to 3.44]; 15 trials; n = 2345) and SF-36 physical health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.77]; 13 trials; n = 2031). Use of mandibular advancement devices was also associated with a significantly larger ESS score change compared with controls (pooled mean difference, -1.67 [95% CI, 2.09 to -1.25]; 10 trials; n = 1540). Reporting of other health outcomes was sparse; no included trial found significant benefit associated with treatment on mortality, cardiovascular events, or motor vehicle crashes. In 3 systematic reviews, positive airway pressure was significantly associated with reduced blood pressure; however, the difference was relatively small (2-3 mm Hg). Conclusions and Relevance: The accuracy and clinical utility of OSA screening tools that could be used in primary care settings were uncertain. Positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices reduced ESS score. Trials of positive airway pressure found modest improvement in sleep-related and general health-related QOL but have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes.

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

Importance: Of youths diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, many develop microvascular complications by young adulthood. Objective: To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 3, 2021; references; experts; literature surveillance through July 22, 2022. Study Selection: English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or type 2 diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms. Results: This review included 8 publications (856 participants; mean age, 14 years [range, 10-17 years]). Of those, 6 were from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study. No eligible studies directly evaluated the benefits or harms of screening. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (TODAY; n = 699 adolescents with obesity; mean age, 14 years) comparing metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, and metformin plus lifestyle intervention reported that 2 youths with recently diagnosed diabetes developed kidney impairment (0 vs 1 vs 1, respectively; P > .99) and 11 developed diabetic ketoacidosis (5 vs 3 vs 3, respectively; P = .70). One RCT of 75 adolescents (mean age, 13 years) with obesity with prediabetes compared an intensive lifestyle intervention with standard care and reported that no participants in either group developed diabetes, although follow-up was only 6 months. Regarding harms of interventions, 2 RCTs assessing different comparisons enrolled youths with recently diagnosed diabetes. Major hypoglycemic events were reported by less than 1% of participants. Minor hypoglycemic events were more common among youths treated with metformin plus rosiglitazone than among those treated with metformin or metformin plus lifestyle intervention in TODAY (8.2% vs 4.3% vs 3.4%, P = .05). In 1 study, gastrointestinal adverse events were more commonly reported by those taking metformin than by those taking placebo (abdominal pain: 25% vs 12%; nausea/vomiting: 17% vs 10%; P not reported). Conclusions and Relevance: No eligible studies directly evaluated the benefits or harms of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. For youths with prediabetes or recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, the only eligible trials reported few health outcomes and found no difference between groups, although evidence was limited by substantial imprecision and a duration of follow-up likely insufficient to assess health outcomes.

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

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

Does This Adult Patient Have Hypertension?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Importance: Office blood pressure (BP) measurements are not the most accurate method to diagnose hypertension. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) are out-of-office alternatives, and ABPM is considered the reference standard for BP assessment. Objective: To systematically review the accuracy of oscillometric office and home BP measurement methods for correctly classifying adults as having hypertension, defined using ABPM. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and DARE databases and the American Heart Association website (from inception to April 2021) were searched, along with reference lists from retrieved articles. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently abstracted raw data and assessed methodological quality. A third author resolved disputes as needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Random effects summary sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for BP measurement methods for the diagnosis of hypertension. ABPM (24-hour mean BP ≥130/80 mm Hg or mean BP while awake ≥135/85 mm Hg) was considered the reference standard. Results: A total of 12 cross-sectional studies (n = 6877) that compared conventional oscillometric office BP measurements to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM and 6 studies (n = 2049) that compared mean BP on HBPM to mean BP during 24-hour ABPM were included (range, 117-2209 participants per analysis); 2 of these studies (n = 3040) used consecutive samples. The overall prevalence of hypertension identified by 24-hour ABPM was 49% (95% CI, 39%-60%) in the pooled studies that evaluated office measures and 54% (95% CI, 39%-69%) in studies that evaluated HBPM. All included studies assessed sensitivity and specificity at the office BP threshold of 140/90 mm Hg and the home BP threshold of 135/85 mm Hg. Conventional office oscillometric measurement (1-5 measurements in a single visit with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 51% (95% CI, 36%-67%), specificity of 88% (95% CI, 80%-96%), positive LR of 4.2 (95% CI, 2.5-6.0), and negative LR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.69). Mean BP with HBPM (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI, 65%-86%), specificity of 76% (95% CI, 65%-86%), positive LR of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.2-4.0), and negative LR of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.20-0.47). Two studies (1 with a consecutive sample) that compared unattended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥135/85 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had sensitivity ranging from 48% to 51% and specificity ranging from 80% to 91%. One study that compared attended automated mean office BP (with BP ≥140/90 mm Hg) with 24-hour ABPM had a sensitivity of 87.6% (95% CI, 83%-92%) and specificity of 24.1% (95% CI, 16%-32%). Conclusions and Relevance: Office measurements of BP may not be accurate enough to rule in or rule out hypertension; HBPM may be helpful to confirm a diagnosis. When there is uncertainty around threshold values or when office and HBPM are not in agreement, 24-hour ABPM should be considered to establish the diagnosis.

Maternal, Fetal, and Child Outcomes of Mental Health Treatments in Women: A Meta-Analysis of Pharmacotherapy.

Objective: The authors systematically reviewed evidence on pharmacotherapy for perinatal mental health disorders. Methods: The authors searched for studies of pregnant, postpartum, or reproductive-age women with mental health disorders treated with pharmacotherapy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and trial registries from database inception through June 5, 2020 and surveilled literature through March 2, 2021. Outcomes included symptoms; functional capacity; quality of life; suicidal events; death; and maternal, fetal, infant, or child adverse events. Results: 164 studies were included. Regarding benefits, brexanolone for third-trimester or postpartum depression onset may be associated with improved depressive symptoms at 30 days when compared with placebo. Sertraline for postpartum depression may be associated with improved response, remission, and depressive symptoms when compared with placebo. Discontinuing mood stabilizers during pregnancy may be associated with increased recurrence of mood episodes for bipolar disorder. Regarding adverse events, most studies were observational and unable to fully account for confounding. Evidence on congenital and cardiac anomalies for treatment compared with no treatment was inconclusive. Brexanolone for depression onset in the third trimester or the postpartum period may be associated with risk of sedation or somnolence, leading to dose interruption or reduction when compared with placebo. Conclusions: Evidence from few studies supports the use of pharmacotherapy for perinatal mental health disorders. Although many studies report on adverse events, they could not rule out underlying disease severity as the cause of the association between exposures and adverse events. Patients and clinicians need to make informed, collaborative decisions on treatment choices.

Strategies in assessing the need for updating evidence-based guidelines for six clinical topics: an exploration of two search methodologies.

BACKGROUND: Because of the expense of updating practice guidelines, recent attention has focused on approaches that can reliably assess any updating required. Shekelle et al. (Journal of the American Medical Association 2001, 286, 1461-7) proposed using limited literature searches with expert involvement to reduce resources used in assessing whether a guideline needs updating. OBJECTIVES: This study compared Shekelle's method and the traditional systematic review method regarding comprehensiveness and effort. METHODS: Two research teams translated critical key questions on screening test treatments and outcomes to Medical Subjects Headings (MeSH) and search strategies. They refined Shekelle's method over three iterations, seeking greater efficiency. Using both methods independently, teams assessed the need to update six topics from the 1996 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services (US Preventive Services Task Force). Outcomes included completeness of study identification, importance of missed studies and effort involved. RESULTS: The revised review approach produced fewer citations than the traditional approach and saved time, identifying fewer eligible studies than the traditional approach. None of the studies missed was rated important by the experts consulted. CONCLUSIONS: The revised review approach provides an acceptable method for judging whether a guideline requires updating. Librarians were an integral part of the research process that streamlined the searches.

Assessing the need to update prevention guidelines: a comparison of two methods.

BACKGROUND: An important concern for developers of clinical practice guidelines is how best to determine when guidelines require updating to ensure they remain current and evidence based. Because of the high costs associated with updating guidelines, recent attention has focused on approaches that can reliably assess the extent of updating required. Recently, Shekelle and colleagues proposed a model of limited literature searches with modest expert involvement as a way to reduce the cost and time requirements for assessing whether a guideline needs updating. METHODS: The main objective of this study was to compare the Shekelle et al. assessment model (review approach) and a conventional process using typical systematic review methods (traditional approach) in terms of comprehensiveness and effort. We modeled the review approach on that by Shekelle and colleagues but refined it iteratively over three phases to achieve greater efficiency. Using both methods independently, we assessed the need to update six topics from the 1996 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Main outcomes included completeness of study identification, importance of missed studies and the effort involved. RESULTS: Although the review approach identified fewer eligible studies than the traditional approach, none of the studies missed was rated as important by task force members acting as liaisons to the project with respect to whether the topic required an update. On average, the review approach produced substantially fewer citations to review than the traditional approach. The effort involved and potential time saving depended largely on the scope of the topic. CONCLUSIONS: The revised review approach provides an efficient and acceptable method for judging whether a guideline requires updating.