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.

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 for Glaucoma in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Two 2013 systematic reviews to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to assess benefits and harms of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in adults. Objective: To update the 2013 reviews on screening for glaucoma, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening, referral, and treatment; and studies of screening test diagnostic accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Results: Eighty-three studies (N = 75 887) were included (30 trials and 53 diagnostic accuracy studies). One RCT (n = 616) found screening of frail elderly persons associated with no difference in vision outcomes vs no screening but with significantly greater falls risk (relative risk [RR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]). No study evaluated referral to an eye health professional. For glaucoma diagnosis, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (providing high-resolution cross-sectional imaging; 15 studies, n = 4242) was associated with sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) and the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (for perimetry, or measurement of visual fields; 6 studies, n = 11 244) with sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and specificity 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-0.92); tonometry (for measurement of intraocular pressure; 13 studies, n = 32 892) had low sensitivity (0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.66]). Medical therapy for ocular hypertension and untreated glaucoma was significantly associated with decreased intraocular pressure and decreased likelihood of glaucoma progression (7 trials, n = 3771; RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.96]; absolute risk difference -4.2%) vs placebo, but 1 trial (n = 461) found no differences in visual acuity, quality of life, or function. Selective laser trabeculoplasty and medical therapy had similar outcomes (4 trials, n = 957). Conclusions and Relevance: This review found limited direct evidence on glaucoma screening, showing no association with benefits. Screening tests can identify persons with glaucoma and treatment was associated with a lower risk of glaucoma progression, but evidence of improvement in visual outcomes, quality of life, and function remains lacking.

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older 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 that effective treatments are available for refractive errors, cataracts, and wet (advanced neovascular) or dry (atrophic) age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but there were no differences between visual screening vs no screening on visual acuity or other outcomes. Objective: To update the 2016 review on screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and controlled observational studies on screening, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (wet AMD), and antioxidant vitamins and minerals (dry AMD); studies on screening diagnostic accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Results: Twenty-five studies (N = 33 586) were included (13 trials, 11 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 1 systematic review [19 trials]). Four trials (n = 4819) found no significant differences between screening vs no screening in visual acuity or other outcomes. Visual acuity tests (3 studies; n = 6493) and screening question (3 studies; n = 5203) were associated with suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. For wet AMD, 4 trials (n = 2086) found VEGF inhibitors significantly associated with greater likelihood of 15 or more letters visual acuity gain (risk ratio [RR], 2.92 [95% CI, 1.20-7.12]; I2 = 76%; absolute risk difference [ARD], 10%) and less than 15 letters visual acuity loss (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.22-1.75]; I2 = 80%; ARD, 27%) vs sham treatment, with no increased risk of serious harms. For dry AMD, a systematic review (19 trials) found antioxidant multivitamins significantly associated with decreased risk of progression to late AMD (3 trials, n = 2445; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.90]) and 3 lines or more visual acuity loss (1 trial, n = 1791; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]) vs placebo. Zinc was significantly associated with increased risk of genitourinary events and beta carotene with increased risk of lung cancer in former smokers; other serious harms were infrequent. Conclusions and Relevance: This review found that effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity in older adults. However, direct evidence found no significant association between vision screening vs no screening in primary care and improved visual outcomes.

Psychosocial Interventions for Adults With Schizophrenia: An Overview and Update of Systematic Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The authors of this systematic review (SR) sought to provide evidence for effects of commonly used psychosocial interventions on several outcomes among adults with schizophrenia. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were searched through July 2020. Eligible studies were SRs and trials of at least 12 weeks duration and with ≥50 participants that compared psychosocial interventions with treatment as usual among adults with schizophrenia. Study design, year, setting, country, sample size, eligibility criteria, population, clinical and intervention characteristics, results, and funding source were extracted, along with quality criteria. The evidence was evaluated on quality and strength of evidence stratified by intervention area and outcome, according to the Evidence-Based Practice Centers Methods Guide of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. RESULTS: Nine SRs and 30 trials (N=23,921 patients) in 11 intervention areas were included. Trials were mostly of fair quality and had low-to-moderate strength of evidence. Compared with treatment as usual, most psychosocial interventions were more effective in improving intervention-targeted outcomes, including core illness symptoms. Compared with treatment as usual, assertive community treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), family interventions, psychoeducation, social skills training, supported employment, and early interventions for first-episode psychosis (FEP) improved various functional outcomes. CBT and early interventions for FEP improved quality of life. Family interventions, psychoeducation, illness self-management, and early interventions for FEP reduced relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with treatment as usual, most psychosocial interventions improved functional outcomes, quality of life, and core illness symptoms, and several reduced relapse frequency among adults with schizophrenia.

Opioid treatment programs, telemedicine and COVID-19: A scoping review.

Background: Methadone and buprenorphine are effective medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) that are highly regulated in the United States. The on-going opioid crisis, and more recently COVID-19, has prompted reconsideration of these restrictions in order to sustain and improve treatment access, with renewed interest in telemedicine. We reviewed the evidence on use of telemedicine interventions and applicability to MOUD policy changes in the post-COVID-19 treatment landscape. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from inception to April 2021 and reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies were eligible if they examined telemedicine interventions and reported outcomes (e.g. treatment initiation, retention in care). Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; other studies were included when stronger evidence was unavailable. One investigator abstracted key information and a second investigator verified data. We described the results qualitatively. Results: We identified nine studies: three controlled trials (two randomized), and six observational studies. Three studies evaluated patients treated with methadone and six studies with buprenorphine, including one study of pregnant women with OUD. All studies showed telemedicine approaches associated with similar outcomes (treatment retention, positive urine toxicology) compared to treatment as usual. Trials were limited by small samples sizes, lack of reporting harms, and most were conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; observational studies were limited by failure to control for confounding. Conclusions: Limited evidence suggests that telemedicine may enhance access to MOUD with similar effectiveness compared with face-to-face treatment. Few studies have been published since COVID-19, and it is unclear the potential impact of these interventions on the existing racial/ethnic disparities in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic and need for social distancing led to temporary policy changes for prescribing of MOUD that could inform additional research in this area to support comprehensive policy reforms.

Effectiveness of and Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder for Adolescents and Young Adults: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: A scoping review assessed access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) and treatment outcomes among adolescents (12 - 17 years) and young adults (18 - 25 years). METHODS: Studies addressing adolescent and young adult opioid use disorder and treatment with MOUD on patient outcomes (eg, retention in care) were included. Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized. Investigators extracted key information, summarized findings, noted methodological weaknesses, and tabled the details. RESULTS: The search identified 4 randomized trials (N = 241), 1 systematic review with 52 studies (total N = 125,994), and 5 retrospective analyses of health insurance claims. The trials reported buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone reduced opioid use. Return to use was observed when pharmacotherapy ceased. A systematic review concluded that adolescents and young adults had lower retention in care than older adults. The observational studies found that adolescents were unlikely to receive MOUD. There was some evidence that non-Hispanic Black adolescents and young adults were less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to receive MOUD. CONCLUSIONS: MOUD therapies reduce opioid use among adolescent and young adults but few receive MOUD. MOUD services for adolescents and young adults should be developed and tested. Randomized clinical trials are necessary to develop appropriate clinical guidelines for using MOUD with adolescents and young adults.

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

Importance: Gestational diabetes is associated with several poor health outcomes. Objective: To update the 2012 review on screening for gestational diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (2010 to May 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists; surveillance through June 2021. Study Selection: English-language intervention studies for screening and treatment; observational studies on screening; prospective studies on screening test accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Single-reviewer data abstraction with verification. Random-effects meta-analysis or bivariate analysis (accuracy). Main Outcomes and Measures: Pregnancy, fetal/neonatal, and long-term health outcomes; harms of screening; accuracy. Results: A total of 76 studies were included (18 randomized clinical trials [RCTs] [n = 31 241], 2 nonrandomized intervention studies [n = 190], 56 observational studies [n = 261 678]). Direct evidence on benefits of screening vs no screening was limited to 4 observational studies with inconsistent findings and methodological limitations. Screening was not significantly associated with serious or long-term harm. In 5 RCTs (n = 25 772), 1-step (International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group) vs 2-step (Carpenter and Coustan) screening was significantly associated with increased likelihood of gestational diabetes (11.5% vs 4.9%) but no improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, oral glucose challenge tests with 140- and 135-mg/dL cutoffs had sensitivities of 82% and 93%, respectively, and specificities of 82% and 79%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria, and a test with a 140-mg/dL cutoff had sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 81% against the National Diabetes Group Data criteria. Fasting plasma glucose tests with cutoffs of 85 and 90 mg/dL had sensitivities of 88% and 81% and specificities of 73% and 82%, respectively, against Carpenter and Coustan criteria. Based on 8 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study (n = 3982), treatment was significantly associated with decreased risk of primary cesarean deliveries (relative risk [RR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; absolute risk difference [ARD], 5.3%), shoulder dystocia (RR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.23-0.77]; ARD, 1.3%), macrosomia (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.68]; ARD, 8.9%), large for gestational age (RR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.47-0.66]; ARD, 8.4%), birth injuries (odds ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-0.99]; ARD, 0.2%), and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-0.99]; ARD, 2.0%). The association with reduction in preterm deliveries was not significant (RR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56-1.01]). Conclusions and Relevance: Direct evidence on screening vs no screening remains limited. One- vs 2-step screening was not significantly associated with improved health outcomes. At or after 24 weeks of gestation, treatment of gestational diabetes was significantly associated with improved health outcomes.

Office-Based Methadone Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder and Pharmacy Dispensing: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a scoping review to survey the evidence landscape for studies that assessed outcomes of treating patients with opioid use disorder with methadone in office-based settings. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and reference lists were reviewed to identify additional studies. Studies were eligible if they focused on methadone treatment in office-based settings conducted in the United States or other highly developed countries and reported outcomes (e.g., retention in care). Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; uncontrolled and descriptive studies were included when stronger evidence was unavailable. One investigator abstracted key information, and a second verified data. A scoping review approach broadly surveyed the evidence, and therefore study quality was not rated formally. RESULTS: Eighteen studies of patients treated with office-based methadone were identified, including six trials, eight observational studies, and four additional articles discussing use of pharmacies to dispense methadone. Studies on office-based methadone treatment, including primary care-based dispensing, were limited but consistently found that stable methadone patients valued office-based care and remained in care with low rates of drug use; outcomes were similar compared with stable patients in regular care. Office-based methadone treatment was associated with higher treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Limitations included underpowered comparisons and small samples. CONCLUSIONS: Limited research suggests that office-based methadone treatment and pharmacy dispensing could enhance access to methadone treatment for patients with opioid use disorder without adversely affecting patient outcomes and, potentially, inform modifications to federal regulations. Research should assess the feasibility of office-based care for less stable patients.

Mobile methadone medication units: A brief history, scoping review and research opportunity.

BACKGROUND: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) approved the first mobile medication unit (i.e., a van to administer methadone) in 1988 and approved units on an ad hoc basis until issuing a moratorium in 2007 citing concerns about safety and diversion. In February 2020, the DEA released a notice of proposed rulemaking to permit a resumption of mobile medication units. The Biden Administration plans to release the final rule in 2021. Because a preliminary scan suggested limited evidence, a scoping review examined the research related to methadone vans to identify and assess the extent of mobile methadone research and inform the development and implementation of new mobile services. METHODS: A scoping review, supplemented with key informant interviews, identified and described the most relevant evidence. Ovid MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases were searched from inception to July 2020. RESULTS: Informant interviews provided perspective on the need for and the use of mobile medication units, the history of methadone vans, and benefits and problems associated with the units. The scoping review found limited evidence: three cohort analyses (one prospective) and one before and after analysis (four studies) of individuals using mobile medication services. Mobile services were associated with enhanced retention in care (relative to patients in fixed site programs) and mobile units appeared to facilitate access for underserved populations with opioid use disorders. DISCUSSION: The key informants addressed the history of methadone vans, the potential use to serve rural communities and correctional facilities and the benefits and problems associated with mobile services. The scoping review found evidence that mobile services increase methadone access among underserved populations and may enhance retention in care. The DEA's proposed regulatory modification creates opportunities to further evaluate the implementation and the effects of mobile medication units.

Interim methadone - Effective but underutilized: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) may provide interim methadone services - up to 120 days of methadone dosing without counseling. Regulatory requirements limit use of interim methadone services. We summarized the evidence on interim methadone and other strategies to minimize wait lists in OTPs. METHODS: A scoping review selected studies of interim methadone and strategies that facilitated access to methadone. Randomized trials and controlled observational studies were prioritized; if evidence was lacking, lesser quality evidence was included. RESULTS: Six studies examined interim methadone and three studies examined alternatives: low threshold services, an open access policy, and a medication first policy. The studies included four randomized clinical trials of interim methadone (with three follow-up reports and five secondary analyses), one prospective cohort of interim methadone, one retrospective cohort of interim methadone, one randomized trial of low threshold services and two pre-post assessments of changes in program or state policies. The clinical trials and observational cohorts reported reductions in heroin use during interim methadone and participants were more likely to enter OTPs than those on wait lists. Retention rates in interim methadone were similar to patients in active treatment. Studies testing strategies to facilitate access to methadone were effective without interim methadone's restrictions. CONCLUSION: Interim methadone appears to be effective and safe compared to wait list controls and provided similar outcomes to standard services. Interim methadone could increase access to OTPs. More research is needed on the alternative approaches to facilitate access to medication with comparisons to wait list controls and assessment of patient outcomes.

Screening for Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Nonpregnant Adolescents and Adults: 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 antiviral therapy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with improved intermediate outcomes, although evidence on clinical outcomes was limited. Objective: To update the 2014 HBV screening review in nonpregnant adolescents and adults to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to August 2019); with surveillance through July 24, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on screening and antiviral therapy; cohort studies on screening, antiviral therapy clinical outcomes, and the association between achieving intermediate outcomes after antiviral therapy and clinical outcomes. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second investigator checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Random-effects profile likelihood meta-analysis was performed. Results: Thirty trials and 20 cohort studies, with a total of 94 168 participants, were included. No study directly evaluated the effects of screening for HBV infection vs no screening on clinical outcomes such as mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, or cirrhosis. Screening strategies that focused on risk factors such as ever having immigrated from high-prevalence countries and demographic and behavioral risk factors would identify nearly all HBV infection cases. In 1 study (n = 21 008), only screening immigrants from high-prevalence countries would miss approximately two-thirds of infected persons. Based on 18 trials (n = 2972), antiviral therapy compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with greater likelihood of achieving intermediate outcomes, such as virologic suppression and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) or hepatitis B surface antigen loss or seroconversion; the numbers needed to treat ranged from 2.6 for virologic suppression to 17 for HBeAg seroconversion. Based on 12 trials (n = 4127), first-line antiviral therapies were at least as likely as nonpreferred therapies to achieve intermediate outcomes. Based on 16 trials (n = 4809), antiviral therapy might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, but data were sparse and imprecise. Nine cohort studies (n = 3893) indicated an association between achieving an intermediate outcome following antiviral therapy and improved clinical outcomes but were heterogeneous (hazard ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.87). Antiviral therapy was associated with higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events vs placebo or no antiviral therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: There was no direct evidence for the clinical benefits and harms of HBV screening vs no screening. Antiviral therapy for HBV infection was associated with improved intermediate outcomes and may improve clinical outcomes.

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.

Updating the Comparative Evidence on Second-Generation Antipsychotic Use With Schizophrenia.

Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature comparing second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with each other and with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) in treating schizophrenia. Methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO databases were searched through January 2020. Following standard methods, recent high-quality systematic reviews of each drug comparison and subsequently published primary studies were included to update the meta-analyses with any new data. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, abstraction, and quality assessment. Results: Two systematic reviews and 29 newer trials (total of 162 trials of SGAs, N=53,861; 116 trials of SGAs versus FGAs, N=119,558) were included. Most trials were of fair quality, industry-funded, and included older SGAs and a few recently approved SGAs (asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, brexpiprazole and long-acting injection [LAI] formulations of aripiprazole and paliperidone). Older SGAs had similar effects on function, quality of life, mortality, and adverse event incidence, although clozapine improved symptoms more than most other drugs and olanzapine and risperidone were superior to some other drugs. Olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole performed similarly on outcomes of benefit compared with haloperidol. Risperidone LAI and olanzapine resulted in fewer withdrawals due to adverse events, but risk of diabetes increased with olanzapine. Haloperidol had greater incidence of adverse events than did olanzapine and risperidone, but similar effects on other outcomes. Conclusions: Most comparative evidence favored older SGAs, with clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone superior on more outcomes than other SGAs. Older SGAs had similar benefits as haloperidol but with fewer adverse events.

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.

Screening for Celiac Disease: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Silent or subclinical celiac disease may result in potentially avoidable adverse health consequences. Objective: To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic adults, adolescents, and children 3 years and older for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, searched to June 14, 2016. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and cohort or case-control studies on clinical benefits and harms of screening vs no screening for celiac disease or treatment vs no treatment for screen-detected celiac disease; studies on diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer incidence, gastrointestinal outcomes, psychological outcomes, child growth outcomes, health outcomes resulting from nutritional deficiencies, quality of life, mortality, and harms of screening. No meta-analytic pooling was done. Results: One systematic review and 3 primary studies met inclusion criteria. No trials of screening for celiac disease were identified. One recent, good-quality systematic review of 56 original studies and 12 previous systematic reviews (sample sizes of primary studies ranging from 62 to more than 12 000 participants) found IgA tissue transglutaminase was associated with high accuracy (sensitivity and specificity both >90%) for diagnosing celiac disease. IgA endomysial antibodies tests were associated with high specificity. Only 2 studies of serologic tests for celiac disease involving 62 and 158 patients were conducted in asymptomatic populations and reported lower sensitivity (57% and 71%). One fair-quality, small (n = 40) Finnish treatment trial of asymptomatic adults with screen-detected celiac disease based on positive serologic findings found initiation of a gluten-free diet associated with small improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms compared with no gluten-free diet (difference less than 1 point on a scale of 1 to 7) at 1 year, with no differences on most measures of quality of life. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred during the trial; no other harms were reported. No studies were identified that addressed the other outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Although some evidence was found regarding diagnostic accuracy of tests for celiac disease, little or no evidence was identified to inform most of the key questions related to benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic individuals. More research is needed to understand the effectiveness of screening and treatment for celiac disease, accuracy of screening tests in asymptomatic persons, and optimal screening strategies.

Primary Care-Based Models for the Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review.

Greater integration of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder (OUD) in U.S. primary care settings would expand access to treatment for this condition. Models for integrating MAT into primary care vary in structure. This article summarizes findings of a technical report for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality describing MAT models of care for OUD, based on a literature review and interviews with key informants in the field. The report describes 12 representative models of care for integrating MAT into primary care settings that could be considered for adaptation across diverse health care settings. Common components of existing care models include pharmacotherapy with buprenorphine or naltrexone, provider and community education, coordination and integration of OUD treatment with other medical and psychological needs, and psychosocial services and interventions. Models vary in how each component is implemented. Decisions about adopting MAT models of care should be individualized to address the unique milieu of each implementation setting.