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.).

Quality Indicators for Major Depressive Disorder in Adults: A Review of Performance Measures by the American College of Physicians.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a severe mood disorder that affects at least 8.4% of the adult population in the United States. Characteristics of MDD include persistent sadness, diminished interest in daily activities, and a state of hopelessness. The illness may progress quickly and have devastating consequences if left untreated. Eight performance measures are available to evaluate screening, diagnosis, and successful management of MDD. However, many performance measures do not meet the criteria for validity, reliability, evidence, and meaningfulness.The American College of Physicians (ACP) embraces performance measurement as a means to externally validate the quality of care of practices, medical groups, and health plans and to drive reimbursement processes. However, a plethora of performance measures that provide low or no value to patient care have inundated physicians, practices, and systems and burdened them with collecting and reporting of data. The ACP's Performance Measurement Committee (PMC) reviews performance measures using a validated process to inform regulatory and accreditation bodies in an effort to recognize high-quality performance measures, address gaps and areas for improvement in performance measures, and help reduce reporting burden. Out of 8 performance measures, the PMC found only 1 measure (suicide risk assessment) that was valid at all levels of attribution. This paper presents a review of MDD performance measures and highlights opportunities to improve performance measures addressing MDD management.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part III: Salvage Therapy After Radiotherapy or Focal Therapy, Pelvic Nodal Recurrence and Oligometastasis, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part III of a three-part series focusing on evaluation and management of suspected non-metastatic recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, evaluation and management of regional recurrence, management for molecular imaging metastatic recurrence, and future directions. Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous and deliberate efforts for multidisciplinary care in prostate cancer will be required to optimize and improve the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients treated with salvage therapies in the future.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part I: Introduction and Treatment Decision-Making at the Time of Suspected Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part I of a three-part series focusing on treatment decision-making at the time of suspected biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part II for discussion of treatment delivery for non-metastatic BCR after RP and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Advancing work in the area of diagnostic tools (particularly imaging), biomarkers, radiation delivery, and biological manipulation with the evolving armamentarium of therapeutic agents will undoubtedly present new opportunities for patients to experience long-term control of their cancer while minimizing toxicity.

Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline Part II: Treatment Delivery for Non-metastatic Biochemical Recurrence After Primary Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: The summary presented herein covers recommendations on salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer intended to facilitate care decisions and aid clinicians in caring for patients who have experienced a recurrence following prior treatment with curative intent. This is Part II of a three-part series focusing on treatment delivery for non-metastatic biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary radical prostatectomy (RP). Please refer to Part I for discussion of treatment decision-making and Part III for discussion of evaluation and management of recurrence after radiotherapy (RT) and focal therapy, regional recurrence, and oligometastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The systematic review that informs this Guideline was based on searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 21, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through August 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through August 2022). Update searches were conducted on July 26, 2023. Searches were supplemented by reviewing electronic database reference lists of relevant articles. RESULTS: In a collaborative effort between AUA, ASTRO, and SUO, the Salvage Therapy for Prostate Cancer Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based guideline statements to provide guidance for the care of patients who experience BCR after initial definitive local therapy for clinically localized disease. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing and personalizing the approach to salvage therapy remains an ongoing area of work in the field of genitourinary oncology and represents an area of research and clinical care that requires well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary efforts.

Efficacy and safety of DAA in children and adolescents with chronic HCV infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of pan-genotypic regimens, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL), and sofosbuvir/daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) and other direct-acting antivirals (DAA) regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected adolescents (12-18 years), older children (6-11 years), and young children (3-5 years). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to inform the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. METHODS: We included clinical trials and observational studies published up to August 11, 2021, that evaluated DAA regimens in HCV-infected adolescents, older children, and young children. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and key conference abstracts. Sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12), adverse events (AEs), and treatment discontinuation were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the ROBINS-I tool. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 49 studies including 1882 adolescents, 436 older children, and 166 young children were considered. The SVR12 was 100% (95% Confidence Interval: 96-100), 96% (90-100), and 96% (83-100) for GLE/PIB in adolescents, older, and young children, respectively; 95% (90-99), 93% (86-98), and 83% (70-93), for SOF/VEL, respectively; and 100% (97-100) and 100% (94-100) for SOF/DCV in adolescent and older children, respectively. There was a clear trend towards a higher rate of any reported AE from adolescents (50%), older children (53%), to young children (72%). Serious AEs and treatment discontinuations were uncommon in adolescents and older children (<1%) but slightly higher in young children (3%). CONCLUSIONS: All three pan-genotypic DAA regimens were highly effective and well-tolerated and are now recommended by the WHO for use in adults, adolescents, and children down to 3 years, which will simplify procurement and supply chain management. The evidence was based largely on single-arm non-randomized controlled studies. Moreover, there were also missing data regarding key variables such as route of HCV acquisition, presence or absence of cirrhosis, or HIV co-infection that precluded evaluation of the impact of these factors on outcomes. PROSPERO RECORD: CRD42020146752.

A narrative review of global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines development processes - The GUidelines Standards (GUS) project.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and public health guidelines serve to direct clinical practice and policy, based on the best available evidence. The World Health Organization (WHO) and national health bodies of many countries have released physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Despite significant overlap in the body of evidence reviewed, the guidelines differ across jurisdictions. This study aimed to review the processes used to develop global and national physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines and examine the extent to which they conform with a recommended methodological standard for the development of guidelines. METHODS: We extracted data on nine sets of guidelines from seven jurisdictions (WHO, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States). We rated each set of guidelines as high, medium, or low quality on criteria related to the rigour of the development process. RESULTS: We observed variation in the quality of guidelines development processes across jurisdictions and across different criteria. Guidelines received the strongest overall ratings for criteria on clearly describing the evidence selected and stating an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Guidelines received the weakest overall ratings for criteria related to clearly describing the methods used to formulate the recommendations and reporting external review by experts prior to publication. Evaluated against the selected criteria, the strongest processes were undertaken by the WHO and Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Reaching agreement on acceptable guideline development processes, as well as the inclusion and appraisal procedures of different types of evidence, would help to strengthen and align future guidelines.

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.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children 5 Years or Younger: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Children with speech and language difficulties are at risk for learning and behavioral problems. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for speech and language delay or disorders in children 5 years or younger to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, ERIC, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), and trial registries through January 17, 2023; surveillance through November 24, 2023. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, trials or cohort studies comparing screening vs no screening; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data extraction; results were narratively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening test accuracy, speech and language outcomes, school performance, function, quality of life, and harms. Results: Thirty-eight studies in 41 articles were included (N = 9006). No study evaluated the direct benefits of screening vs no screening. Twenty-one studies (n = 7489) assessed the accuracy of 23 different screening tools that varied with regard to whether they were designed to be completed by parents vs trained examiners, and to screen for global (any) language problems vs specific skills (eg, expressive language). Three studies assessing parent-reported tools for expressive language skills found consistently high sensitivity (range, 88%-93%) and specificity (range, 88%-85%). The accuracy of other screening tools varied widely. Seventeen RCTs (n = 1517) evaluated interventions for speech and language delay or disorders, although none enrolled children identified by routine screening in primary care. Two RCTs evaluating relatively intensive parental group training interventions (11 sessions) found benefit for different measures of expressive language skills, and 1 evaluating a less intensive intervention (6 sessions) found no difference between groups for any outcome. Two RCTs (n = 76) evaluating the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists featuring parent training found a 2.3% to 3.0% lower proportion of syllables stuttered at 9 months compared with the control group when delivered in clinic and via telehealth, respectively. Evidence on other interventions was limited. No RCTs reported on the harms of interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. Some parent-reported screening tools for expressive language skills had reasonable accuracy for detecting expressive language delay. Group parent training programs for speech delay that provided at least 11 parental training sessions improved expressive language skills, and a stuttering intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists reduced stuttering frequency.

Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Child maltreatment is associated with serious negative physical, psychological, and behavioral consequences. Objective: To review the evidence on primary care-feasible or referable interventions to prevent child maltreatment to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through February 2, 2023; references, experts, and surveillance through December 6, 2023. Study Selection: English-language, randomized clinical trials of youth through age 18 years (or their caregivers) with no known exposure or signs or symptoms of current or past maltreatment. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality, and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Directly measured reports of child abuse or neglect (reports to Child Protective Services or removal of the child from the home); proxy measures of abuse or neglect (injury, visits to the emergency department, hospitalization); behavioral, developmental, emotional, mental, or physical health and well-being; mortality; harms. Results: Twenty-five trials (N = 14 355 participants) were included; 23 included home visits. Evidence from 11 studies (5311 participants) indicated no differences in likelihood of reports to Child Protective Services within 1 year of intervention completion (pooled odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.84-1.27]). Five studies (3336 participants) found no differences in removal of the child from the home within 1 to 3 years of follow-up (pooled risk ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.37-2.99]). The evidence suggested no benefit for emergency department visits in the short term (<2 years) and hospitalizations. The evidence was inconclusive for all other outcomes because of the limited number of trials on each outcome and imprecise results. Among 2 trials reporting harms, neither reported statistically significant differences. Contextual evidence indicated (1) widely varying practices when screening, identifying, and reporting child maltreatment to Child Protective Services, including variations by race or ethnicity; (2) widely varying accuracy of screening instruments; and (3) evidence that child maltreatment interventions may be associated with improvements in some social determinants of health. Conclusion and Relevance: The evidence base on interventions feasible in or referable from primary care settings to prevent child maltreatment suggested no benefit or insufficient evidence for direct or proxy measures of child maltreatment. Little information was available about possible harms. Contextual evidence pointed to the potential for bias or inaccuracy in screening, identification, and reporting of child maltreatment but also highlighted the importance of addressing social determinants when intervening to prevent child maltreatment.

Reflex Hepatitis C Virus Viral Load Testing Following an Initial Positive Hepatitis C Virus Antibody Test: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many people who have a positive hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody (Ab) test never receive a confirmatory HCV RNA viral load (VL) test. Reflex VL testing may help address this problem. We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of reflex VL testing compared with standard nonreflex approaches on outcomes across the HCV care cascade. METHODS: We searched 4 databases for studies that examined laboratory-based reflex or clinic-based reflex VL testing approaches, with or without a nonreflex comparator, and had data on the uptake of HCV RNA VL test and treatment initiation and turnaround time between Ab and VL testing. Both laboratory- and clinic-based reflex VL testing involve only a single clinic visit. Summary estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included (32 laboratory-based and 19 clinic-based reflex VL testing). Laboratory-based reflex VL testing increased HCV VL test uptake versus nonreflex testing (RR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.16-1.58) and may improve linkage to care among people with a positive HCV RNA test (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: .81-2.67) and HCV treatment initiation (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: .46-2.32). The median time between Ab and VL test was <1 day for all laboratory-based reflex studies and 0-5 days for 13 clinic-based reflex testing. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory-based and clinic-based HCV reflex VL testing increased uptake and reduced time to HCV VL testing and may increase HCV linkage to care. The World Health Organization now recommends reflex VL testing as an additional strategy to promote access to HCV VL testing and treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021283822.

Improving cascade outcomes for active TB: A global systematic review and meta-analysis of TB interventions.

BACKGROUND: To inform policy and implementation that can enhance prevention and improve tuberculosis (TB) care cascade outcomes, this review aimed to summarize the impact of various interventions on care cascade outcomes for active TB. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we retrieved English articles with comparator arms (like randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before and after intervention studies) that evaluated TB interventions published from January 1970 to September 30, 2022, from Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane library. Commentaries, qualitative studies, conference abstracts, studies without standard of care comparator arms, and studies that did not report quantitative results for TB care cascade outcomes were excluded. Data from studies with similar comparator arms were pooled in a random effects model, and outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and number of studies (k). The quality of evidence was appraised using GRADE, and the study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018103331). Of 21,548 deduplicated studies, 144 eligible studies were included. Of 144 studies, 128 were from low/middle-income countries, 84 were RCTs, and 25 integrated TB and HIV care. Counselling and education was significantly associated with testing (OR = 8.82, 95% CI:1.71 to 45.43; I2 = 99.9%, k = 7), diagnosis (OR = 1.44, 95% CI:1.08 to 1.92; I2 = 97.6%, k = 9), linkage to care (OR = 3.10, 95% CI = 1.97 to 4.86; I2 = 0%, k = 1), cure (OR = 2.08, 95% CI:1.11 to 3.88; I2 = 76.7%, k = 4), treatment completion (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.03; I2 = 73.1%, k = 8), and treatment success (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: 1.88 to 5.55; I2 = 75.9%, k = 5) outcomes compared to standard-of-care. Incentives, multisector collaborations, and community-based interventions were associated with at least three TB care cascade outcomes; digital interventions and mixed interventions were associated with an increased likelihood of two cascade outcomes each. These findings remained salient when studies were limited to RCTs only. Also, our study does not cover the entire care cascade as we did not measure gaps in pre-testing, pretreatment, and post-treatment outcomes (like loss to follow-up and TB recurrence). CONCLUSIONS: Among TB interventions, education and counseling, incentives, community-based interventions, and mixed interventions were associated with multiple active TB care cascade outcomes. However, cost-effectiveness and local-setting contexts should be considered when choosing such strategies due to their high heterogeneity.

Diagnosis and Management of Non-Metastatic Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: AUA/SUO Guideline.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based diagnoses and management of non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). MATERIALS/METHODS: The Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center of Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) team conducted searches in Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 3rd, 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 2022), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through January 2022). The searches were updated August 2022. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence was assigned a strength rating of A (high), B (moderate), or C (low) for support of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendations. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional information is provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions (Table 1).[Table: see text]Results:This Guideline provides updated, evidence-based recommendations regarding diagnosis and management of non-metastatic UTUC including risk stratification, surveillance and survivorship. Treatments discussed include kidney sparing management, surgical management, lymph node dissection (LND), neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: This standardized guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with UTUC based on available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements for improving patient care. Updates will occur as the knowledge regarding disease biology, clinical behavior and new therapeutic options develop.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022.

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Under-Triage and Over-Triage Using the Field Triage Guidelines for Injured Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The Field Triage Guidelines (FTG) are used across North America to identify seriously injured patients for transport to appropriate level trauma centers, with a goal of under-triaging no more than 5% and over-triaging between 25% and 35%. Our objective was to systematically review the literature on under-triage and over-triage rates of the FTG. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the FTG performance. Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Two investigators dual-reviewed eligibility of abstracts and full-text. We included studies evaluating under- or over-triage of patients using the FTG in the prehospital setting. We excluded studies not reporting an outcome of under- or over-triage, studies evaluating other triage tools, or studies of triage not in the prehospital setting. Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias for each included article. The primary accuracy measures to assess the FTG were under-triage, defined as seriously injured patients transported to non-trauma hospitals (1-sensitivity), and over-triage, defined as non-injured patients transported to trauma hospitals (1-specificity). Due to heterogeneity, results were synthesized qualitatively. RESULTS: We screened 2,418 abstracts, reviewed 315 full-text publications, and identified 17 studies that evaluated the accuracy of the FTG. Among eight studies evaluating the entire FTG (steps 1-4), under-triage rates ranged from 1.6% to 72.0% and were higher for older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (20.1-72.0%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (15.9-34.8%) compared to all ages (1.6-33.8%). Over-triage rates ranged from 9.9% to 87.4% and were higher for all ages (12.2-87.4%) compared to older (≥55 or ≥65 years) adults (9.9-48.2%) and pediatric (<15 years) patients (28.0-33.6%). Under-triage was lower in studies strictly applying the FTG retrospectively (1.6-34.8%) compared to as-practiced (10.5-72.0%), while over-triage was higher retrospectively (64.2-87.4%) compared to as-practiced (9.9-48.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that under-triage, while improved if the FTG is strictly applied, remains above targets, with higher rates of under-triage in both children and older adults.

Cannabis-Based Products for Chronic Pain : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data are needed about the utility of cannabinoids in chronic pain. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabinoids for chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus to January 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, randomized, placebo-controlled trials and cohort studies (≥1 month duration) of cannabinoids for chronic pain. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction, risk of bias, and strength of evidence assessments were dually reviewed. Cannabinoids were categorized by THC-to-CBD ratio (high, comparable, or low) and source (synthetic, extract or purified, or whole plant). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n = 1740) and 7 cohort studies (n = 13 095) assessed cannabinoids. Studies were primarily short term (1 to 6 months); 56% enrolled patients with neuropathic pain, with 3% to 89% female patients. Synthetic products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (>98% THC) may be associated with moderate improvement in pain severity and response (≥30% improvement) and an increased risk for sedation and are probably associated with a large increased risk for dizziness. Extracted products with high THC-to-CBD ratios (range, 3:1 to 47:1) may be associated with large increased risk for study withdrawal due to adverse events and dizziness. Sublingual spray with comparable THC-to-CBD ratio (1.1:1) probably is associated with small improvement in pain severity and overall function and may be associated with large increased risk for dizziness and sedation and moderate increased risk for nausea. Evidence for other products and outcomes, including longer-term harms, were not reported or were insufficient. LIMITATION: Variation in interventions; lack of study details, including unclear availability in the United States; and inadequate evidence for some products. CONCLUSION: Oral, synthetic cannabis products with high THC-to-CBD ratios and sublingual, extracted cannabis products with comparable THC-to-CBD ratios may be associated with short-term improvements in chronic pain and increased risk for dizziness and sedation. Studies are needed on long-term outcomes and further evaluation of product formulation effects. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (PROSPERO: CRD42021229579).

Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and biopsychosocial self-management compared to medical care for low back pain: a randomized trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is widespread, costly, and burdensome to patients and health systems. Little is known about non-pharmacological treatments for the secondary prevention of cLBP. There is some evidence that treatments addressing psychosocial factors in higher risk patients are more effective than usual care. However, most clinical trials on acute and subacute LBP have evaluated interventions irrespective of prognosis. METHODS: We have designed a phase 3 randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The study is also a Hybrid type 1 trial with focus on intervention effectiveness while simultaneously considering plausible implementation strategies. Adults (n = 1000) with acute/subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back screening tool will be randomized in to 1 of 4 interventions lasting up to 8 weeks: supported self-management (SSM), spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), both SSM and SMT, or medical care. The primary objective is to assess intervention effectiveness; the secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators impacting future implementation. Primary effectiveness outcome measures are: (1) average pain intensity over 12 months post-randomization (pain, numerical rating scale); (2) average low back disability over 12 months post-randomization (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire); (3) prevention of cLBP that is impactful at 10-12 months follow-up (LBP impact from the PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0). Secondary outcomes include: recovery, PROMIS-29 Profile v2.0 measures to assess pain interference, physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. Other patient-reported measures include LBP frequency, medication use, healthcare utilization, productivity loss, STarT Back screening tool status, patient satisfaction, prevention of chronicity, adverse events, and dissemination measures. Objective measures include the Quebec Task Force Classification, Timed Up & Go Test, the Sit to Stand Test, and the Sock Test assessed by clinicians blinded to the patients' intervention assignment. DISCUSSION: By targeting those subjects at higher risk this trial aims to fill an important gap in the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of promising non-pharmacological treatments compared to medical care for the management of patients with an acute episode of LBP and the prevention of progression to a severe chronic back problem. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581123.

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

Importance: A 2019 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) associated with decreased HIV infection risk vs placebo or no PrEP in adults at increased HIV acquisition risk. Newer PrEP regimens are available. Objective: To update the 2019 review on PrEP, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase (January 2018 to May 16, 2022); surveillance through March 24, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of PrEP vs placebo or no PrEP or newer vs older PrEP regimens and diagnostic accuracy studies of instruments for predicting incident HIV infection. 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: HIV acquisition, mortality, and harms; and diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Thirty-two studies were included in the review (20 randomized clinical trials [N = 36 543] and 12 studies of diagnostic accuracy [N = 5 544 500]). Eleven trials in the 2019 review found oral PrEP associated with decreased HIV infection risk vs placebo or no PrEP (n = 18 172; relative risk [RR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.33-0.66]). Higher adherence was associated with greater efficacy. One new trial (n = 5335) found oral tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) to be noninferior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in men who have sex with men (RR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.19-1.14]). Two new trials found long-acting injectable cabotegravir associated with decreased risk of HIV infection vs oral TDF/FTC (RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18-0.62] in cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women [n = 4490] and RR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.04-0.31] in cisgender women [n = 3178]). Discrimination of instruments for predicting incident HIV infection was moderate in men who have sex with men (5 studies; n = 25 488) and moderate to high in general populations of persons without HIV (2 studies; n = 5 477 291). Conclusions and Relevance: In adults at increased HIV acquisition risk, oral PrEP was associated with decreased risk of acquiring HIV infection compared with placebo or no PrEP. Oral TAF/FTC was noninferior to oral TDF/FTC, and injectable cabotegravir reduced the risk of HIV infection compared with oral TDF/FTC in the populations studied.

Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Children and Adolescents Aged 5 to 17 Years: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Dental caries is common in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention. Objective: To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023. Study Selection: Diagnostic accuracy of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions and systematic reviews of such studies; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for fluoride supplements and xylitol; for other preventive interventions, pooled estimates were used from good-quality systematic reviews. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dental caries, morbidity, functional status, quality of life, harms; diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Three systematic reviews (total 20 684 participants) and 19 randomized clinical trials, 3 nonrandomized trials, and 1 observational study (total 15 026 participants) were included. No study compared screening vs no screening. When administered by dental professionals or in school settings, fluoride supplements compared with placebo or no intervention were associated with decreased change from baseline in the number of decayed, missing, or filled permanent teeth (DMFT index) or decayed or filled permanent teeth (DFT index) (mean difference, -0.73 [95% CI, -1.30 to -0.19]) at 1.5 to 3 years (6 trials; n = 1395). Fluoride gels were associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.27) at outcomes closest to 3 years (4 trials; n = 1525), fluoride varnish was associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.11-0.76) at 1 to 4.5 years (5 trials; n = 3902), and resin-based sealants were associated with decreased risk of carious first molars (odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) at 48 to 54 months (4 trials; n = 440). No trial evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral. Evidence on screening accuracy, silver diamine fluoride, xylitol, and harms was very limited, although serious harms were not reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Administration of fluoride supplements, fluoride gels, varnish, and sealants in dental or school settings improved caries outcomes. Research is needed on the effectiveness of oral health preventive interventions in primary care settings and to determine the benefits and harms of screening.

Screening, Referral, Behavioral Counseling, and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Adults: A Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Dental caries and periodontal disease are common adult oral health conditions and potentially amenable to primary care screening and prevention. Objective: To systematically review the evidence on primary care screening and prevention of dental caries and periodontal disease in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to October 3, 2022); surveillance through July 21, 2023. Study Selection: Diagnostic accuracy studies of primary care screening instruments and oral examination; randomized and nonrandomized trials of screening and preventive interventions; cohort studies on primary care oral health screening and preventive intervention harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Diagnostic accuracy data were pooled using a bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dental caries, periodontal disease, morbidity, quality of life, harms; and diagnostic test accuracy. Results: Five randomized clinical trials, 5 nonrandomized trials, and 6 observational studies (total 3300 participants) were included. One poor-quality trial (n = 477) found no difference between oral health screening during pregnancy vs no screening in caries, periodontal disease, or birth outcomes. One study (n = 86) found oral health examination by 2 primary care clinicians associated with low sensitivity (0.42 and 0.56) and high specificity (0.84 and 0.87) for periodontal disease and with variable sensitivity (0.33 and 0.83) and high specificity (0.80 and 0.93) for dental caries. Four studies (n = 965) found screening questionnaires associated with a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.83) and specificity of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for periodontal disease. For preventive interventions no study evaluated primary care counseling or dental referral, and evidence from 2 poor-quality trials (n = 178) of sealants, and 1 fair-quality and 4 poor-quality trials (n = 971) of topical fluorides, was insufficient. Three fair-quality trials (n = 590) of persons with mean age 72 to 80 years found silver diamine fluoride solution associated with fewer new root caries lesions or fillings vs placebo (mean reduction, -0.33 to -1.3) and decreased likelihood of new root caries lesion (2 trials; adjusted odds ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.7]). No trial evaluated primary care-administered preventive interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening questionnaires were associated with moderate diagnostic accuracy for periodontal disease. Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of oral health primary care screening and preventive interventions.