Lung cancer diagnosis and mortality beyond 15 years since quit in individuals with a 20+ pack-year history: A systematic review.

Current US lung cancer screening recommendations limit eligibility to adults with a pack-year (PY) history of ≥20 years and the first 15 years since quit (YSQ). The authors conducted a systematic review to better understand lung cancer incidence, risk and mortality among otherwise eligible individuals in this population beyond 15 YSQ. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched through February 14, 2023, and relevant articles were searched by hand. Included studies examined the relationship between adults with both a ≥20-PY history and ≥15 YSQ and lung cancer diagnosis, mortality, and screening ineligibility. One investigator abstracted data and a second confirmed. Two investigators independently assessed study quality and certainty of evidence (COE) and resolved discordance through consensus. From 2636 titles, 22 studies in 26 articles were included. Three studies provided low COE of elevated lung cancer incidence beyond 15 YSQ, as compared with people who never smoked, and six studies provided moderate COE that the risk of a lung cancer diagnosis after 15 YSQ declines gradually, but with no clinically significant difference just before and after 15 YSQ. Studies examining lung cancer-related disparities suggest that outcomes after 15 YSQ were similar between African American/Black and White participants; increasing YSQ would expand eligibility for African American/Black individuals, but for a significantly larger proportion of White individuals. The authors observed that the risk of lung cancer not only persists beyond 15 YSQ but that, compared with individuals who never smoked, the risk may remain significantly elevated for 2 or 3 decades. Future research of nationally representative samples with consistent reporting across studies is needed, as are better data from which to examine the effects on health disparities across different populations.

Screening for lung cancer: 2023 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person-years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network-validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios from LCS and follow-up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50-80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low-dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50-80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack-year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision-making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States.

Trends in Robot-Assisted Procedures for General Surgery in the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of robot-assisted procedures is growing. Utilization within the country's largest healthcare network, the Veterans Health Administration, is unclear. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 2015 through December 2019. Trends in robot utilization for cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, and inguinal hernia repair were characterized nationally and regionally by Veterans Integrated Services Network. Patients, who underwent laparoscopic repairs for these procedures and open hernia repairs, were included to determine proportion performed robotically. RESULTS: We identified 119,191 patients, of which 5689 (4.77%) received a robotic operation. The proportion of operations performed robotically increased from 1.49% to 10.55% (7.08-fold change; slope, 2.14% per year; 95% confidence interval [0.79%, 3.49%]). Ventral hernia repair had the largest growth in robotic procedures (1.51% to 13.94%; 9.23-fold change; slope, 2.86% per year; 95% confidence interval [1.04%, 4.68%]). Regions with the largest increase in robotic utilization were primarily along the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast. CONCLUSIONS: Robot utilization in general surgery is increasing at different rates across the United States in the Veterans Health Administration. Future studies should investigate the regional disparities and drivers of this approach.

Robot-Assisted General Surgery Procedures at the Veterans Health Administration: A Comparison of Surgical Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: The use of the robot in general surgery has exploded in the last decade. The Veterans Health Administration presents a unique opportunity to study differences between surgical approaches due to the ability to control for health system and insurance variability. This study compares clinical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic or open techniques for three general surgery procedures. METHODS: A retrospective observational study using the Veterans Affair Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operative time, length of stay, and complications were compared for cholecystectomy (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic), ventral, and inguinal hernia repair (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic or open) from 2015 to 2019. RESULTS: More than 80,000 cases were analyzed (21,652 cholecystectomy, 9214 ventral hernia repairs, and 51,324 inguinal hernia repairs). Median operative time was longer for all robot-assisted approaches as compared to laparoscopic or open techniques with the largest difference seen between open and robot-assisted primary ventral hernia repair (unadjusted difference of 93 min, P < 0.001). Median length of stay was between 1 and 4 d and significantly for robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs (versus open, P < 0.01; versus lap for recurrent hernia, P < 0.05). Specific postoperative outcomes of interest were overall low with few differences between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: While the robotic platform was associated with longer operative time, these findings must be interpreted in the context of a learning curve and indications for use (i.e., use of the robot for technically challenging cases). Our findings suggest that at the Veterans Health Administration, the robot is as safe a platform for common general surgery procedures as traditional approaches. Future studies should focus on patient-centered outcomes including pain and cosmesis.

Factors Associated with Health Inequalities in Infectious Disease Pandemics Predating COVID-19 in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Previous pandemics may offer evidence on mediating factors that contributed to disparities in infection and poor outcomes, which could inform the effort to mitigate potential unequal outcomes during the current COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review sought to examine those factors. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane to May 2020. We included studies examining health disparities in adult U.S. populations during infectious disease epidemics or pandemics. Two investigators screened abstracts and full text. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle/Ottawa Scale or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Results: Sixteen articles were included, of which 14 focused on health disparities during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Studies showed that disparities during the H1N1 pandemic were more related to differential exposure to the virus than to susceptibility or access to care. Overall, pandemic-related disparities emanate primarily from inequalities in social conditions that place racial and ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status populations at greater risk of exposure and infection, rather than individual-level factors such as health behaviors and comorbidities. Conclusions: Policy- and systems-level interventions should acknowledge and address these social determinants of heightened risk, and future research should evaluate the effects of such interventions to avoid further exacerbation of health inequities during the current and future pandemics.

Disparities in H1N1 Vaccination Rates: a Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis to Inform COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that there were disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, and these may inform COVID-19 vaccination efforts. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. METHODS: We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through May 8, 2020. Observational studies examining H1N1 vaccine uptake by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rurality, and disability status in US settings were included. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Single-reviewer data abstraction was confirmed by a second reviewer. We conducted independent dual quality assessment, and collective strength of evidence assessment. RESULTS: We included 21 studies. African American/Black, Latino, and low-socioeconomic status participants had disproportionately lower H1N1 vaccination rates (low- to moderate-strength evidence). However, Latinos were more likely than Whites to intend to be vaccinated, and African American/Blacks and participants with lower-socioeconomic status were just as likely to intend to be vaccinated as their White and higher-socioeconomic status counterparts (low-strength evidence). Vaccine uptake for other groups has been insufficiently studied. Factors potentially contributing to disparities in vaccine uptake included barriers to vaccine access, inadequate information, and concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. Studies were largely cross-sectional. Many of the studies are a decade old and were conducted in the context of a different pandemic. The categorization of racial and ethnic groups was not consistent across studies and not all groups were well-studied. DISCUSSION: Efforts to avoid disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake should prioritize vaccine accessibility and convenience in African American/Black, Latino, and low-SES communities; engage trusted stakeholders to share vaccine information; and address concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020187078.

Preventing Unequal Health Outcomes in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Past Interventions.

Background: We sought to identify interventions that reduced disparities in health outcomes in infectious disease outbreaks or natural disasters in the United States to understand whether these interventions could reduce health disparities in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and other databases to May 2020 to find studies that examined interventions to mitigate health inequalities in previous infectious disease pandemics or disasters. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Results: We included 14 articles (12 studies) and 5 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stakeholder meeting articles on pandemic influenza preparedness in marginalized populations. Studies called for intervention and engagement before pandemic or disaster onset. Several studies included interventions that could be adapted to COVID-19, including harnessing technology to reach disadvantaged populations, partnering with trusted community liaisons to deliver important messaging around disease mitigation, and using culturally specific communication methods and messages to best reach marginalized groups. Discussion: To our knowledge this is the first systematic review to examine interventions to mitigate health inequities during an infectious disease pandemic. However, given that we identified very few disparities-focused infectious disease intervention studies, we also included studies from the disaster response literature, which may not be as generalizable to the current context of COVID-19. Overall, community outreach and tailored communication are essential in disease mitigation. More research is needed to evaluate systemic interventions that target the distal determinants of poor health outcomes among marginalized populations during pandemics and natural disasters.

The Effectiveness of Depression Treatment for Adults with ESKD: A Systematic Review.

Adults with dialysis-dependent ESKD experience higher rates of depression than the general population, yet efficacy of depression treatments in this population is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the benefits and harms of depression treatment in adults with ESKD. We searched multiple data sources through June 2020 for English-language, controlled trials that compared interventions for depression in adults with ESKD to another intervention, placebo, or usual care, and reported depression treatment-related outcomes. Observational studies were included for harms. Two investigators independently screened all studies using prespecified criteria. One reviewer abstracted data on study design, interventions, implementation characteristics, and outcomes, and a second reviewer provided confirmation. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and resolved any discords through discussion or a third reviewer. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed and agreed upon by review-team consensus. We qualitatively analyzed the data and present syntheses in text and tables. We included 26 RCTs and three observational studies. SSRIs were the most studied type of drug and the evidence was largely insufficient. We found moderate SOE that long-term, high-dose vitamin D3 is ineffective for reducing depression severity. Cognitive behavioral therapy is more effective than (undefined) psychotherapy and placebo for depression improvement and quality of life (low SOE), and acupressure is more effective than usual care or sham acupressure in reducing depression severity (low SOE). There is limited research evaluating treatment for depression in adults with ESKD, and existing studies may not be generalizable to adults in the United States. Studies suffer from limitations related to methodologic quality or reporting. More research replicating studies of promising interventions in US populations, with larger samples, is needed. Systematic Review registry name and registration number: PROSPERO, CRD42020140227.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19-Related Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ among U.S. racial/ethnic groups. PURPOSE: To evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates and COVID-19 outcomes, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, searched from inception through 31 August 2020. Gray literature sources were searched through 2 November 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, or deaths by race/ethnicity in U.S. settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction confirmed by a second reviewer; independent dual-reviewer assessment of quality and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 37 mostly fair-quality cohort and cross-sectional studies, 15 mostly good-quality ecological studies, and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and APM Research Lab were included. African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and COVID-19-related mortality compared with non-Hispanic White populations, but not higher case-fatality rates (mostly reported as in-hospital mortality) (moderate- to high-strength evidence). Asian populations experience similar outcomes to non-Hispanic White populations (low-strength evidence). Outcomes for other racial/ethnic groups have been insufficiently studied. Health care access and exposure factors may underlie the observed disparities more than susceptibility due to comorbid conditions (low-strength evidence). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias, missing race/ethnicity data, and incomplete outcome assessments in cohort and cross-sectional studies must be considered. In addition, adjustment for key demographic covariates was lacking in ecological studies. CONCLUSION: African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality but similar rates of case fatality. Differences in health care access and exposure risk may be driving higher infection and mortality rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. (PROSPERO: CRD42020187078).

Depression Screening Tools for Patients with Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with kidney failure experience depression at rates higher than the general population. Despite the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ESRD Quality Incentive Program requirements for routine depression screening for patients with kidney failure, no clear guidance exists. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and other databases from inception to June 2020. Two investigators screened all abstracts and full text. We included studies assessing patients with kidney failure and compared a tool to a clinical interview or another validated tool (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory II). We abstracted data related to sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and the area under the curve. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies evaluated the performance characteristics of depression assessment tools for patients with kidney failure. The Beck Depression Inventory II was by far the best studied. A wide range of thresholds were reported. Shorter tools in the public domain such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 and Geriatric Depression Scale 15 (adults over 60) performed well but were not well studied. Short tools such as the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen may be a good option for an initial screen. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited research evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of most screening tools for depression in patients with kidney failure, and existing studies may not be generalizable to US populations. Studies suffer from limitations related to methodology quality and/or reporting. Future research should target widely used, free tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire 9. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020140227.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of medications for stimulant use disorders in patients with co-occurring opioid use disorders.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant (cocaine and/or methamphetamine) use has increased among people with opioid use disorder. We conducted a systematic review of medications for stimulant use disorders in this population. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials in multiple databases through April 2019, and dual-screened studies using pre-specified inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were abstinence defined as stimulant-negative urine screens for ≥3 consecutive weeks; overall use as the proportion of stimulant-negative urine specimens; and retention as the proportion of participants who completed treatment. We rated strength of evidence using established criteria and conducted meta-analyses of comparable interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-four trials of 22 medications focused on cocaine use disorder in patients with opioid use disorder. Most studies enrolled participants stabilized on opioid maintenence therapy, generally methadone. None of the six studies that assessed abstinence found significant differences between groups. We found moderate-strength evidence that antidepressants (desipramine, bupropion, and fluoxetine) worsened retention. There was moderate-strength evidence that disulfiram worsened treatment retention (N = 605, RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77 to 0.95). We found low-strength evidence that psychostimulants (mazindol and dexamphetamine) may reduce cocaine use, though the difference was not statistically significant (standard mean difference 0.35 [95 % CI -0.05 to 0.74]). There was only 1 trial for methamphetamine use disorder, which showed insufficient-strength evidence for naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Co-occurring stimulant/opioid use disorder is an important problem for targeting future research. Medication trials for methamphetamine use disorder are lacking in this population. Most of the medications studied for cocaine use were ineffective, although psychostimulants warrant further study.

Effectiveness of Patient Navigation to Increase Cancer Screening in Populations Adversely Affected by Health Disparities: a Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effectiveness of patient navigation to increase screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in populations adversely affected by health care disparities. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through English-language searches of Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, SocINDEX, and Veterans Affairs Health Services database (January 1, 1996, to July 5, 2019) and manual review of reference lists. Randomized trials and observational studies of relevant populations that evaluated the effectiveness of patient navigation on screening rates for colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer compared with usual or alternative care comparison groups were included. Two investigators independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality and applicability using criteria adapted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Results were combined using profile likelihood random effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria (28 colorectal, 11 breast, 4 cervical cancers including 3 trials with multiple cancer types). Screening rates were higher with patient navigation for colorectal cancer overall (risk ratio [RR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42 to 1.92; I2 = 93.7%; 22 trials) and by type of test (fecal occult blood or immunohistochemistry testing [RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.15; I2 = 80.5%; 6 trials]; colonoscopy/endoscopy [RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.56; I2 = 94.6%; 6 trials]). Screening was also higher with navigation for breast cancer (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; I2 = 98.6%; 10 trials) and cervical cancer (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19; based on the largest trial). The high heterogeneity of cervical cancer studies prohibited meta-analysis. Results were similar for colorectal and breast cancer regardless of prior adherence to screening guidelines, follow-up time, and study quality. CONCLUSIONS: In populations adversely affected by disparities, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening rates were higher in patients provided navigation services. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42018109263.

Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cannabis use disorder (CUD) is a growing concern, and evidence-based data are needed to inform treatment options. Purpose: To review the benefits and risks of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of CUD. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and clinical trial registries from inception through September 2019. Study Selection: Pharmacotherapy trials of adults or adolescents with CUD that targeted cannabis abstinence or reduction, treatment retention, withdrawal symptoms, and other outcomes. Data Extraction: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by a second. Study quality was dually assessed, and strength of evidence (SOE) was determined by consensus according to standard criteria. Data Synthesis: Across 26 trials, the evidence was largely insufficient. Low-strength evidence was found that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) do not reduce cannabis use or improve treatment retention. Low- to moderate-strength evidence was found that buspirone does not improve outcomes and that cannabinoids do not increase abstinence rates (moderate SOE), reduce cannabis use (low SOE), or increase treatment retention (low SOE). Across all drug studies, no consistent evidence of increased harm was found. Limitations: Few methodologically rigorous trials have been done. Existing trials are hampered by small sample sizes, high attrition rates, and heterogeneity of concurrent interventions and outcomes assessment. Conclusion: Although data on pharmacologic interventions for CUD are scarce, evidence exists that several drug classes, including cannabinoids and SSRIs, are ineffective. Because of increasing access to and use of cannabis in the general population, along with a high prevalence of CUD among current cannabis users, an urgent need exists for more research to identify effective pharmacologic treatments. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018108064).

Achieving Health Equity in Preventive Services: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop.

Background: Disadvantaged populations in the United States experience disparities in the use of preventive health services. Purpose: To examine effects of barriers that create health disparities in 10 recommended preventive services for adults, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce them. Data Sources: English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and the Veterans Affairs Health Services database (1 January 1996 to 5 July 2019); reference lists. Study Selection: Trials, observational studies with comparison groups, and systematic reviews of populations adversely affected by disparities that reported effects of barriers on use of any of the 10 selected preventive services or that reported the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disparities in use of a preventive service by improving intermediate or clinical outcomes. Data Extraction: Dual extraction and assessment of study quality, strength of evidence, and evidence applicability. Data Synthesis: No studies reported effects of provider-specific barriers on preventive service use. Eighteen studies reporting effects of patient barriers, such as insurance coverage or lack of a regular provider, on preventive service use had mixed and inconclusive findings. Studies of patient-provider interventions (n = 12), health information technologies (n = 11), and health system interventions (n = 88) indicated higher cancer screening rates with patient navigation; telephone calls, prompts, and other outreach methods; reminders involving lay health workers; patient education; risk assessment, counseling, and decision aids; screening checklists; community engagement; and provider training. Single studies showed that clinician-delivered and technology-assisted interventions improved rates of smoking cessation and weight loss, respectively. Limitation: Insufficient or low strength of evidence and applicability for most interventions except patient navigation, telephone calls and prompts, and reminders involving lay health workers. Conclusion: In populations adversely affected by disparities, patient navigation, telephone calls and prompts, and reminders involving lay health workers increase cancer screening. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Office of Disease Prevention through an interagency agreement with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018109263).

Efficacy of Biofeedback for Medical Conditions: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Biofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research. METHODS: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps. RESULTS: We included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies. DISCUSSION: Available evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated.

Pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine/amphetamine use disorder-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Addiction to methamphetamine/amphetamine (MA/A) is a major public health problem. Currently there are no pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder that have been approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency. We reviewed the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for MA/A use disorder to assess the quality, publication bias and overall strength of the evidence. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library) to April 2019 for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies recruited adults who had MA/A use disorder; sample sizes ranged from 19 to 229 participants. Outcomes of interest were abstinence, defined as 3 or more consecutive weeks with negative urine drug screens (UDS); overall use, analyzed as the proportion of MA/A negative UDS specimens; and treatment retention. One SR of pharmacotherapies for MA/A use disorder and 17 additional RCTs met our inclusion criteria encompassing 17 different drugs (antidepressants, antipsychotics, psychostimulants, anticonvulsants and opioid antagonists). We combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality, publication bias and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. RESULTS: There was low-strength evidence from two RCTs that methylphenidate may reduce MA/A use: 6.5 versus 2.8% MA/A-negative UDS in one study (n = 34, P = 0.008) and 23 versus 16% in another study (n = 54, P = 0.047). Antidepressants as a class had no statistically significant effect on abstinence or retention on the basis of moderate strength evidence. Studies of anticonvulsants, antipsychotics (aripiprazole), opioid antagonists (naltrexone), varenicline and atomoxetine provided either low-strength or insufficient evidence of no effect on the outcomes of interest. Many of the studies had high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of low- to moderate-strength evidence, most medications evaluated for methamphetamine/amphetamine use disorder have not shown a statistically significant benefit. However, there is low-strength evidence that methylphenidate may reduce use.

Pharmacotherapy for Cocaine Use Disorder-a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for cocaine use disorder. METHODS: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) through November 2017 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in adults with cocaine use disorder. When possible, we combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of individual trials and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. Outcomes included continuous abstinence (3+ consecutive weeks); cocaine use; harms; and study retention. For relapse prevention studies (participants abstinent at baseline), we examined lapse (first cocaine positive or missing UDS) and relapse (two consecutive cocaine positive or missed UDS'). RESULTS: Sixty-six different drugs or drug combinations were studied in seven systematic reviews and 48 RCTs that met inclusion criteria. Antidepressants were the most widely studied drug class (38 RCTs) but appear to have no effect on cocaine use or treatment retention. Increased abstinence was found with bupropion (2 RCTs: RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59), topiramate (2 RCTs: RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.73), and psychostimulants (14 RCTs: RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77), though the strength of evidence for these findings was low. We found moderate strength of evidence that antipsychotics improved treatment retention (8 RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.75). DISCUSSION: Most of the pharmacotherapies studied were not effective for treating cocaine use disorder. Bupropion, psychostimulants, and topiramate may improve abstinence, and antipsychotics may improve retention. Contingency management and behavioral interventions along with pharmacotherapy should continue to be explored. SR REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42018085667.

Comparative effectiveness and harms of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for three retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents are widely used to treat ocular conditions but the benefits and harms of these treatments are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to compare the effects of aflibercept, bevacizumab and ranibizumab on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) changes, quality of life and ocular or systemic adverse events in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NVAMD), diabetic macular oedema (DME) and central or branch retinal vein occlusion (RVO). We searched published and unpublished literature sources to February 2017 for randomised controlled trials and cohort or modelling studies reporting comparative costs in the USA. Two reviewers extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. Of 17 included trials, none reported a clinically important difference (≥ 5 letters) in visual acuity gains between agents. Nine trials provide high-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for NVAMD. Three trials provide moderate-strength evidence of no difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for DME. There was low-strength evidence of similar effects between aflibercept and ranibizumab for NVAMD, aflibercept and bevacizumab for RVO and all three agents for DME. There was insufficient evidence to compare bevacizumab and ranibizumab for RVO. Rates of ocular adverse events were low, and systemic harms were generally similar between groups, although 1 DME trial reported more arterial thrombotic events with ranibizumab versus aflibercept. Overall, no agent had a clear advantage over another for effectiveness or safety. Aflibercept and ranibizumab were significantly less cost-effective than repackaged bevacizumab in two trials. Systematic review registration number: CRD42016034076.