Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause : An Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Women seeking nonhormonal interventions for vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) may seek out complementary and alternative medicine or therapies (CAMs). PURPOSE: To summarize published evidence of CAMs for GSM. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through 11 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 8 weeks or more in duration that evaluated the effectiveness or harms of CAMs for postmenopausal women with GSM and reported 1 or more outcomes of interest, with sample sizes of 20 or more participants randomly assigned per group. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. DATA SYNTHESIS: An evidence map approach was used to organize and describe trials. Studies were organized by type of intervention, with narrative summaries for population, study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Fifty-seven trials were identified that investigated 39 unique interventions. Studies were typically small (n < 200), and most were done in Iran (k = 24) or other parts of Asia (k = 9). Few trials evaluated similar combinations of populations, interventions, comparators, or outcomes. Most studies (k = 44) examined natural products (that is, herbal or botanical supplements and vitamins), whereas fewer reported on mind and body practices (k = 6) or educational programs (k = 7). Most studies reported 1 or 2 GSM symptoms, mainly sexual (k = 44) or vulvovaginal (k = 30). Tools used to measure outcomes varied widely. Most trials reported on adverse events (k = 33). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were used. Effect estimates, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were not assessed. CONCLUSION: There is a large and heterogeneous literature of CAM interventions for GSM. Trials were small, and few were done in North America. Standardized population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes reporting in future RCTs are needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).

Hormonal Treatments and Vaginal Moisturizers for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women commonly experience vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). PURPOSE: To evaluate effectiveness and harms of vaginal estrogen, nonestrogen hormone therapies, and vaginal moisturizers for treatment of GSM symptoms. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and CINAHL through 11 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 8 weeks' duration enrolling postmenopausal women with at least 1 GSM symptom and reporting effectiveness or harms of hormonal interventions or vaginal moisturizers. DATA EXTRACTION: Risk of bias and data extraction were performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Certainty of evidence (COE) was assessed by one reviewer and verified by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 11 993 citations, 46 RCTs evaluating vaginal estrogen (k = 22), nonestrogen hormones (k = 16), vaginal moisturizers (k = 4), or multiple interventions (k = 4) were identified. Variation in populations, interventions, comparators, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or no treatment, vaginal estrogen may improve vulvovaginal dryness, dyspareunia, most bothersome symptom, and treatment satisfaction. Compared with placebo, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) may improve dryness, dyspareunia, and distress, bother, or interference from genitourinary symptoms; oral ospemifene may improve dryness, dyspareunia, and treatment satisfaction; and vaginal moisturizers may improve dryness (all low COE). Vaginal testosterone, systemic DHEA, vaginal oxytocin, and oral raloxifene or bazedoxifene may provide no benefit (low COE) or had uncertain effects (very low COE). Although studies did not report frequent serious harms, reporting was limited by short-duration studies that were insufficiently powered to evaluate infrequent serious harms. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were 12 weeks or less in duration and used heterogeneous GSM diagnostic criteria and outcome measures. Few studies enrolled women with a history of cancer. CONCLUSION: Vaginal estrogen, vaginal DHEA, oral ospemifene, and vaginal moisturizers may improve some GSM symptoms in the short term. Few long-term data exist on efficacy, comparative effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of GSM treatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).

Prostate cancer screening with MRI does not differ from PSA only for detection but reduces biopsies and overdiagnosis.

SOURCE CITATION: Fazekas T, Shim SR, Basile G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10:745-754. 38576242.

Impact of the diagnostic label for a low-risk prostate lesion: protocol for two online factorial randomised experiments.

INTRODUCTION: Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).

Estimating the Effect of Radical Prostatectomy: Combining Data From the SPCG4 and PIVOT Randomized Trials With Contemporary Cohorts.

PURPOSE: Two randomized trials (SPCG4 and PIVOT) have compared surgery to conservative management for localized prostate cancer. The applicability of these trials to contemporary practice remains uncertain. We aimed to develop an individualized prediction model for prostate cancer mortality comparing immediate surgery at a high-volume center to active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We determined whether the relative risk of prostate cancer mortality with surgery vs observation varied by baseline risk. We then used various estimates of relative risk to estimate 15-year mortality with and without surgery using, as a predictor, risk of biochemical recurrence calculated from a model. RESULTS: We saw no evidence that relative risk varied by baseline risk, supporting the use of a constant relative risk. Compared with observation, surgery was associated with negligible benefit for patients with Grade Group (GG) 1 disease (0.2% mortality reduction at 15 years) and small benefit for patients with GG2 with lower PSA and stage (≤5% mortality reduction). Benefit was greater (6%-9%) for patients with GG3 or GG4 though still modest, but effect estimates varied widely depending on choice of hazard ratio for surgery (6%-36% absolute risk reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery should be avoided for men with low-risk (GG1) prostate cancer and for many men with GG2 disease. Surgical benefits are greater in men with higher-risk disease. Integration of findings with a life expectancy model will allow patients to make informed treatment decisions given their oncologic risk, risk of death from other causes, and estimated effects of surgery.

Reimagining How We Synthesize Information to Impact Clinical Care, Policy, and Research Priorities in Real Time: Examples and Lessons Learned from COVID-19.

Real-time clinical care, policy, and research decisions need real-time evidence synthesis. However, as we found during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is challenging to rapidly address key clinical and policy questions through rigorous, relevant, and usable evidence. Our objective is to present three exemplar cases of rapid evidence synthesis products from the Veterans Healthcare Administration Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) and, in the context of these examples, outline ESP products, challenges, and lessons learned. We faced challenges in (1) balancing scientific rigor with the speed in which evidence synthesis was needed, (2) sorting through rapidly evolving large bodies of evidence, and (3) assessing the impact of evidence synthesis products on clinical care, policy, and research. We found solutions in (1) engaging stakeholders early, (2) utilizing artificial intelligence capabilities, (3) building infrastructure to establish living reviews, and (4) planning for dissemination to maximize impact.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE). LIMITATIONS: Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons. CONCLUSION: In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. STUDY SELECTION: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. CONCLUSION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).

Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH): AUA Guideline Amendment 2023.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline amendment is to provide a useful reference on the effective evidence-based management of male lower urinary tract symptoms secondary/attributed to BPH (LUTS/BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Minnesota Evidence Review Team searched Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) database to identify studies relevant to the management of BPH. The guideline was updated in 2023 to capture eligible literature published between September 2020 and October 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. RESULTS: The BPH amendment resulted in changes to statements/supporting text on combination therapy, photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP), water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT), laser enucleation, and prostate artery embolization (PAE). A new statement on temporary implanted prostatic devices (TIPD) was added. In addition, statements on transurethral needle ablation (TUNA) and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) were removed and information regarding these legacy technologies was added to the background section. References and the accompanying treatment algorithms were updated to align with the updated text. CONCLUSION: This guideline seeks to improve clinicians' ability to evaluate and treat patients with BPH/LUTS based on currently available evidence. Future studies will be essential to further support these statements to improve patient care.

Screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults: a guidance statement from the American College of Physicians (version 2)

The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC. This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC. METHODS: This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: Clinicians should start screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults at age 50 years. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: Clinicians should consider not screening asymptomatic average-risk adults between the ages of 45 to 49 years. Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3: Clinicians should stop screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults older than 75 years or in asymptomatic average-risk adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4A: Clinicians should select a screening test for colorectal cancer in consultation with their patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient values and preferences. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4B: Clinicians should select among a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years as a screening test for colorectal cancer. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4C: Clinicians should not use stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum screening tests for colorectal cancer.

Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review.

Guidelines strongly recommend trauma-focused therapies to treat posttraumatic stress disorder. Implementation of cognitive processing therapy (CPT) and prolonged exposure (PE) in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and non-VHA settings began in 2006. We conducted a systematic review of implementation facilitators and challenges and strategies to address barriers. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until March 2021 for English-language articles. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality. Quantitative results were abstracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Qualitative results were independently coded by two reviewers and finalized through consensus. We used RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks to synthesize findings. 29 eligible studies addressed CPT/PE, mostly conducted in VHA. Training/education with audit/feedback was the primary implementation strategy and was linked to improved provider CPT/PE perceptions and self-efficacy. Use was not widespread. Only six studies tested other implementation strategies with mixed impact. Following VHA implementation, strong support for training, perceived effectiveness for patients and benefits for clinics, and positive patient experiences and relationships with providers were reported. However, barriers persisted including perceived protocol inflexibility, complex referral processes and patient complexity and competing needs. In non-VHA settings, providers perceived fewer barriers, but few were CPT/PE trained. Across both settings, fewer studies targeted patient factors. Training/education with audit/feedback improved perceptions and the availability of CPT/PE, but not consistent use. Studies testing implementation strategies to address post-training challenges, including patient-level factors, are needed. A few studies are underway in VHA to test patient-focused and other implementation strategies. Research assessing actual vs perceived barriers in non-VHA settings is needed to elucidate unique challenges experienced.

Evaluation of Implementation Strategies for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) is a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) priority. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) are effective for chronic pain and several mental health conditions. We synthesized evidence on implementation strategies to increase EBP access and use. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception until March 2021 for articles on EBP implementation within integrated health systems to treat chronic pain or chronic mental health conditions. Reviewers independently screened articles, extracted results, coded qualitative findings, and rated quality using modified criteria from Newcastle-Ottawa (quantitative results) or Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative results). We categorized implementation strategies using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework and classified outcomes using RE-AIM domains (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance). RESULTS: Twelve articles (reporting results from 10 studies) evaluated CBT (k = 11) and ACT (k = 1) implementation strategies in large integrated healthcare systems. No studies evaluated MBSR implementation. Eight articles evaluated strategies within VHA. Six articles reported on national VHA EBP implementation programs; all involved training/education, facilitation, and audit/feedback. CBT and ACT implementation demonstrated moderate to large improvements in patient symptoms and quality of life. Trainings increased mental health provider self-efficacy in delivering EBPs, improved provider EBP perceptions, and increased provider EBP use during programs, but had unclear impacts on Reach. It was unclear whether external facilitation added benefit. Provider EBP maintenance was modest; barriers included competing professional time demands and patient barriers. DISCUSSION: Multi-faceted CBT and ACT implementation programs increased provider EBP Adoption but had unclear impacts on Reach. Future implementation efforts should further evaluate Reach, Adoption, and Maintenance; assess the added value of external facilitation; and consider strategies targeting patient barriers. Future work should use implementation frameworks to guide evaluations of barriers and facilitators, processes of change, and outcomes. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252038.

Risk prediction models for diabetic foot ulcer development or amputation: a review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: In adults with diabetes, diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and amputation are common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. PURPOSE: Identify tools predicting risk of DFU or amputation that are prognostically accurate and clinically feasible. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of tools predicting DFU or amputation published in multiple databases from initiation to January, 2023. We assessed risk of bias (ROB) and provided a narrative review of reviews describing performance characteristics (calibration and discrimination) of prognostically accurate tools. For such tools, we additionally reviewed original studies to ascertain clinical applicability and usability (variables included, score calculation, and risk categorization). RESULTS: We identified 3 eligible SRs predicting DFU or amputation risk. Two recent SRs (2020 and 2021) were rated as moderate and low ROB respectively. Four risk prediction models - Boyko, Martins-Mendes (simplified), Martins-Mendes (original), and PODUS 2020 had good prognostic accuracy for predicting DFU or amputation over time horizons ranging from 1- to 5-years. PODUS 2020 predicts absolute average risk (e.g., 6% risk of DFU at 2 years) and consists of 3-binary variables with a simple, summative scoring (0-4) making it feasible for clinic use. The other 3 models categorize risk subjectively (e.g., high-risk for DFU at 3 years), include 2-7 variables, and require a calculation device. No data exist to inform rescreening intervals. Furthermore, the effectiveness of targeted interventions in decreasing incidence of DFU or amputation in response to prediction scores is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: In this review of reviews, we identified 4 prognostically accurate models that predict DFU or amputation in persons with diabetes. The PODUS 2020 model, predicting absolute average DFU risk at 2 years, has the most favorable prognostic accuracy and is clinically feasible. Rescreening intervals and effectiveness of intervention based on prediction score are uncertain.

Barriers and Facilitators of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Chronic Pain in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) have demonstrated effectiveness for improving outcomes in chronic pain. These evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) remain underutilized in clinical practice, however. To identify research gaps and next steps for improving uptake of EBPs, we conducted a systematic review of patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers and facilitators of their use for chronic pain. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from inception through September 2022. Prespecified eligibility criteria included outpatient treatment of adults with chronic pain; examination of barriers and facilitators and/or evaluation of implementation strategies; conducted in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Canada or Australia; and publication in English. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and rated quality. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of results using a best-fit framework approach building upon domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified 34 eligible studies (33 moderate or high quality), most (n = 28) of which addressed patient-level factors. Shared barriers across EBPs included variable patient buy-in to therapy rationale and competing responsibilities for patients; shared facilitators included positive group or patient-therapist dynamics. Most studies examining ACT and all examining MBSR assessed only group formats. No studies compared barriers, facilitators, or implementation strategies of group CBT to individual CBT, or of telehealth to in-person EBPs. Conceptual mismatches of patient knowledge and beliefs with therapy principles were largely analyzed qualitatively, and studies did not explore how these mismatches were addressed to support engagement. Future research on EBPs for chronic pain in real-world practice settings is needed to explore provider and system-level barriers and facilitators, heterogeneity of effects and uptake, and both effects and uptake of EBPs delivered in various formats, including group vs individual therapy and telehealth or asynchronous digital approaches. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review synthesizes evidence on barriers and facilitators to uptake of cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction for chronic pain. Findings can guide future implementation work to increase availability and use of evidence-based psychotherapies for treatment of chronic pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42021252038.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD. RECOMMENDATION 1A: ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 1B: ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.