Search

BACKGROUND Telehealth has become widely used as a novel way to provide outpatient care during the COVID-19 pandemic, but data about telehealth use in primary care remain limited. Studies in other specialties raise concerns that telehealth may be widening existing health care disparities, requiring further scrutiny of trends in telehealth use. OBJECTIVE Our study aims to further characterize sociodemographic differences in primary care via telehealth compared to in-person office visits before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine if these disparities changed throughout 2020. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large US academic center with 46 primary care practices from April-December 2019 to April-December 2020. Data were subdivided into calendar quarters and compared to determine evolving disparities throughout the year. We queried and compared billed outpatient encounters in General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine via binary logic mixed effects regression model and estimated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We used sex, race, and ethnicity of the patient attending each encounter as fixed effects. We analyzed socioeconomic status of patients in the institution’s primary county based on the patient’s residence zip code. RESULTS A total of 81,822 encounters in the pre–COVID-19 time frame and 47,994 encounters in the intra–COVID-19 time frame were analyzed; in the intra–COVID-19 time frame, a total of 5322 (11.1%) of encounters were telehealth encounters. Patients living in zip code areas with high utilization rate of supplemental nutrition assistance were less likely to use primary care in the intra–COVID-19 time frame (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98; P=.006). Encounters with the following patients were less likely to be via telehealth compared to in-person office visits: patients who self-identified as Asian (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.86) and Nepali (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.19-0.72), patients insured by Medicare (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.88), and patients living in zip code areas with high utilization rate of supplemental nutrition assistance (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99). Many of these disparities persisted throughout the year. Although there was no statistically significant difference in telehealth use for patients insured by Medicaid throughout the whole year, subanalysis of quarter 4 found encounters with patients insured by Medicaid were less likely to be via telehealth (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.97; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS Telehealth was not used equally by all patients within primary care throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically by patients who self-identified as Asian and Nepali, insured by Medicare, and living in zip code areas with low socioeconomic status. As the COVID-19 pandemic and telehealth infrastructure change, it is critical we continue to reassess the use of telehealth. Institutions should continue to monitor disparities in telehealth access and advocate for policy changes that may improve equity.

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

The preferences of autism stakeholders regarding the top priorities for future autism research are largely unknown.This study had two objectives: First, to examine what autism stakeholders think new research investments should be and the attributes of investment that they consider important, and second, to explore the feasibility, acceptability and outcomes of two prioritization exercises among autism stakeholders regarding their priorities for future research in autism.This was a prospective stakeholder-engaged iterative study consisting of best-worst scaling (BWS) and direct prioritization exercise.A national snowball sample of 219 stakeholders was included: adults with autism, caregivers, service providers and researchers.The main outcomes measures were attributes that participants value in future research investments, and priority research investments for future research.Two hundred and nineteen participants completed the exercises, of whom 11% were adults with autism, 58% were parents/family members, 37% were service providers and 21% were researchers. Among stakeholders, the BWS exercises were easier to understand than the direct prioritization, less frequently skipped and yielded more consistent results. The proportion of children with autism affected by the research was the most important attribute for all types of stakeholders. The top three priorities among future research investments were (1) evidence on which child, family and intervention characteristics lead to the best/worst outcomes; (2) evidence on how changes in one area of a child's life are related to changes in other areas; and (3) evidence on dietary interventions. Priorities were similar for all stakeholder types.The values and priorities examined here provide a road map for investigators and funders to pursue autism research that matters to stakeholders.Stakeholders completed a BWS and direct prioritization exercise to inform us about their priorities for future autism research.

Importance: Eating disorders are associated with adverse health and social outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and trial registries through December 19, 2020; surveillance through January 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening or interventions for eating disorders in populations with screen-detected or previously untreated eating disorders (trials limited to populations who are underweight were ineligible). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies and intervention trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, eating disorder symptom severity, quality of life, depression, and harms. Results: Fifty-seven studies were included (N = 10 773); 3 (n = 1073) limited to adolescents (mean or median age, 14-15 years). No study directly evaluated the benefits and harms of screening. Seventeen studies (n = 6804) evaluated screening test accuracy. The SCOFF questionnaire (cut point ≥2) had a pooled sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 74% to 90%) and pooled specificity of 80% (95% CI, 65% to 89%) in adults (10 studies, n = 3684). Forty RCTs (n = 3969) evaluated interventions for eating disorders; none enrolled a screen-detected population. Lisdexamfetamine for binge eating disorder (4 RCTs; n = 900) was associated with larger reductions in eating disorder symptom severity on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale modified for binge eating (YBOCS-BE) than placebo (pooled mean difference, -5.75 [95% CI, -8.32 to -3.17]). Two RCTs (n = 465) of topiramate for binge eating disorder found larger reductions in YBOCS-BE scores associated with topiramate than placebo, from -6.40 (95% CI, -8.16 to -4.64) to -2.55 (95% CI, -4.22 to -0.88). Nine pharmacotherapy trials (n = 2006) reported on harms. Compared with placebo, lisdexamfetamine was associated with higher rates of dry mouth, headache, and insomnia, and topiramate was associated with higher rates of paresthesia, taste perversion, confusion, and concentration difficulty. Twenty-four trials (n = 1644) assessed psychological interventions. Guided self-help for binge eating disorder improved eating disorder symptom severity more than control (pooled standardized mean difference, -0.96 [95% CI, -1.26 to -0.67]) (5 studies, n = 391). Evidence on other interventions was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. The SCOFF questionnaire had adequate accuracy for detecting eating disorders among adults. No treatment trials enrolled screen-detected populations; guided self-help, lisdexamfetamine, and topiramate were effective for reducing eating disorder symptom severity among referred populations with binge eating disorder, but pharmacotherapies were also associated with harms.

This systematic review to support the 2023 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement on serologic screening for genital herpes summarizes published evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and interventions for genital herpes in asymptomatic sexually active adolescents, adults, and pregnant persons with no clinical history of genital herpes.

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

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

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

The Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening.To assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms.Randomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020.Adults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS.LCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid.Intent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises.Of 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income$50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89).Incidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.

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

Background Multiple national organizations recommend screening and counseling adults for unhealthy alcohol use. Methods An evidence-based approach to screening and counseling using Epic electronic health record (EHR) tools was implemented in a general medicine clinic. A dissemination package with actionable steps for clinics and systems wishing to implement similar processes was then produced. To evaluate the initial implementation and quality improvement project, run charts were created to track patients screened, patients counseled, and fidelity to protocols, and members of the original project team were interviewed to assess facilitators and barriers. The draft dissemination package was revised after feedback from health system representatives (key informants). Results More than 9,000 patients (73.9% of those eligible) were screened in 20 months. Sixty-four percent of patients with positive initial screens had documented screening-related assessment; 39.7% (141/355) were offered counseling when indicated. Initial project team members identified EHR tools, clinic leadership, quality improvement culture, a multidisciplinary team, and training for providers and nurses as facilitators; and competing demands, patient population size, and nursing staff/resident turnover as barriers. Six key informants evaluated the dissemination package. Most rated 10 of the 12 sections as very useful; all rated components specific to implementing alcohol screening and counseling as very useful. Ratings for general guidance on implementing evidence-based services in primary care were more mixed. Conclusion Evidence-based screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use can be implemented with EHR tools. A dissemination guide was viewed favorably by key informants and can serve as a guide for other clinics and systems.

Background Unhealthy alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA and is associated with many societal and health problems. Less than a third of people who visit primary care providers in the USA are asked about or ever discuss alcohol use with a health professional. Methods/design This study is an adaptive, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice facilitation and telehealth services on evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use in small-to-medium-sized primary care practices. Study participants will include primary care practices in North Carolina with 10 or fewer providers. All enrolled practices will receive a practice facilitation intervention that includes quality improvement (QI) coaching, electronic health record (EHR) support, training, and expert consultation. After 6 months, practices in the lower 50th percentile (based on performance) will be randomized to continued practice facilitation or provision of telehealth services plus ongoing facilitation for the next 6 months. Practices in the upper 50th percentile after the initial 6 months of intervention will continue to receive practice facilitation alone. The main outcome measures include the number (and %) of patients in the target population who are screened for unhealthy alcohol use, screen positive, and receive brief counseling. Additional measures include the number (and %) of patients who receive pharmacotherapy for AUD or are referred for AUD services. Sample size calculations determined that 35 practices are needed to detect a 10% increase in the main outcome (percent screened for unhealthy alcohol use) over 6 months. Discussion A successful intervention would significantly reduce morbidity among adults from unhealthy alcohol use by increasing counseling and other treatment opportunities. The study will produce important evidence about the effect of practice facilitation on uptake of evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use when delivered on a large scale to small and medium-sized practices. It will also generate scientific knowledge about whether embedded telehealth services can improve the use of evidence-based screening and interventions for practices with slower uptake. The results of this rigorously conducted evaluation are expected to have a positive impact by accelerating the dissemination and implementation of evidence related to unhealthy alcohol use into primary care practices. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04317989. Registered on March 23, 2020.

Evidence-based depression treatment in primary care is well established. However, clinicians are less likely to be trained to diagnose and treat anxiety disorder, which is frequently comorbid, poses an independent risk for suicidality, and complicates disease management. The University of North Carolina's Internal Medicine Clinic developed a measurement-guided approach to identifying and treating anxiety disorder using the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, treatment algorithms, medication charts, case-based training for best practices, onsite behavioral counseling, and psychiatric consultation. NAMASTE (new anxiety management algorithm standardizing treatment experience) offers a treatment approach for primary care and addresses a major unmet need in public health and medical education.

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia, increases the risk of stroke.To review the evidence on screening for AF in adults without prior stroke to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.PubMed, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through October 5, 2020; references, experts, and literature surveillance through October 31, 2021.Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening among asymptomatic persons without known AF or prior stroke; test accuracy studies; RCTs of anticoagulation among persons with AF; systematic reviews; and observational studies reporting harms.Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.Detection of undiagnosed AF, test accuracy, mortality, stroke, stroke-related morbidity, and harms.Twenty-six studies (N = 113 784) were included. In 1 RCT (n = 28 768) of twice-daily electrocardiography (ECG) screening for 2 weeks, the likelihood of a composite end point (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for bleeding) was lower in the screened group over 6.9 years (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .045), but that study had numerous limitations. In 4 RCTs (n = 32 491), significantly more AF was detected with intermittent and continuous ECG screening compared with no screening (risk difference range, 1.0%-4.8%). Treatment with warfarin over a mean of 1.5 years in populations with clinical, mostly persistent AF was associated with fewer ischemic strokes (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20-0.51]; 5 RCTs; n = 2415) and lower all-cause mortality (pooled RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.93]) compared with placebo. Treatment with direct oral anticoagulants was also associated with lower incidence of stroke (adjusted odds ratios range, 0.32-0.44) in indirect comparisons with placebo. The pooled RR for major bleeding for warfarin compared with placebo was 1.8 (95% CI, 0.85-3.7; 5 RCTs; n = 2415), and the adjusted odds ratio for major bleeding for direct oral anticoagulants compared with placebo or no treatment ranged from 1.38 to 2.21, but CIs did not exclude a null effect.Although screening can detect more cases of unknown AF, evidence regarding effects on health outcomes is limited. Anticoagulation was associated with lower risk of first stroke and mortality but with increased risk of major bleeding, although estimates for this harm are imprecise; no trials assessed benefits and harms of anticoagulation among screen-detected populations.

Controversy over blood pressure (BP) treatment targets for individuals with diabetes is in part due to conflicting perspectives about generalizability of available trial data.The authors sought to estimate how results from the largest clinical trial of intensive BP treatment among adults with diabetes would generalize to the U.S.The authors used transportability methods to reweight individual patient data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) BP trial (N = 4,507) of intensive (goal systolic BP 120 mm Hg) versus standard (goal systolic BP 140 mm Hg) treatment to better represent the demographic and clinical risk factors of the U.S. population of adults with diabetes (data from NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] 2005 to 2014, n = 1,943). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. Analysis used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models with robust standard errors.The ACCORD BP sample had less racial/ethnic diversity and more elevated cardiovascular risk factors than the NHANES participants. Weighted results significantly favored intensive BP treatment, unlike unweighted results (hazard ratio for primary outcome in intensive versus standard treatment in weighted analyses: 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.91; in unweighted analyses: hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.07). Over 5 years, the weighted results estimate a number needed to treat of 34, and number needed to harm of 55.After reweighting to better reflect the U.S. adult population with diabetes, intensive BP therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for cardiovascular events. However, data were limited among racial/ethnic minorities and those with lower cardiovascular risk.

Objectives The USPSTF recommends lung cancer screening to adults aged 55 to 80 years who are current or former heavy smokers. Guidelines also recommend a thorough patient understanding of harms, including overdiagnosis, prior to screening. Many US medical centers, both academic and community, have screening programs and publish information about screening on their websites. Because websites could influence patients’ perceptions of screening benefits and harms, and subsequent decisions, some experts have expressed concern about persuasive or overly optimistic portrayals of screening in patient-facing websites. We evaluated the reporting of overdiagnosis on these websites in relation to the reporting of benefits, other harms, and suggested next steps for patients. Method Our study sample included lung cancer screening program websites found through a standardized web search from two types of institutions: 1) academic medical centers associated with all (n=152) US allopathic medical schools; 2) a state-matched random sample of community (non-academic) lung cancer screening programs drawn from a list of all (n=1779) American College of Radiology designated lung cancer screening centers. Two investigators independently evaluated each website for the reporting of overdiagnosis, benefits, other harms, and recommendations for next steps. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Analysis included bivariate comparisons between reporting rates for overdiagnosis and other harms and benefits. Results We identified 81 academic centers and 81 community centers (total n=162) with screening websites. Overdiagnosis was reported on 11 (6.7%) websites and more frequently on academic sites (13.6% vs 0.0%, p Conclusions Overdiagnosis was uncommonly reported by academic medical center lung cancer screening websites and was absent from community-based screening program websites. It was the least commonly reported harm and was noted significantly less than benefits of screening. Websites noting overdiagnosis were more likely to report potential harms of screening and to recommend patients weigh the harms and benefits of screening themselves and in consultation with their primary care provider. Research is needed to determine how portrayal of screening-related harms and benefits in this setting may contribute to imbalanced perceptions of harms and benefits and how these perceptions influence patient screening decisions.

BACKGROUND Naltrexone trials have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients with alcohol use disorders. Hospital initiation of naltrexone has had limited study. OBJECTIVE To describe the implementation and impact of a process for counseling hospitalized patients with alcohol withdrawal about naltrexone. DESIGN A pre-post study analysis. SETTING A tertiary academic center. PATIENTS Patients hospitalized for alcohol withdrawal. INTERVENTION (1) Provider education about the efficacy and contraindications of naltrexone and (2) algorithms for evaluating patients for naltrexone. MEASUREMENTS The percentages of patients counseled about and prescribed naltrexone before discharge and the percentages of pre- and postintervention patients with 30-day emergency department (ED) revisits and rehospitalizations. RESULTS We identified 128 patient encounters before and 114 after implementation. The percentage of patients counseled about naltrexone rose from 1.6% preimplementation to 63.2% postimplementation (P

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body of experts who make evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services using a transparent and objective process. Developing recommendations on a clinical preventive service requires evidence of its effect on health outcomes. Health outcomes are symptoms, functional levels, and conditions that affect a patient's quantity or quality of life and are measured by assessments of physical or psychologic well-being. Intermediate outcomes are pathologic, physiologic, psychologic, social, or behavioral measures related to a preventive service. Given the frequent lack of evidence on health outcomes, the USPSTF uses evidence on intermediate outcomes when appropriate. The ultimate goal is to determine precisely a consistent relationship between the direction and magnitude of change in an intermediate outcome with a predictable resultant direction and magnitude of change in the health outcomes. The USPSTF reviewed its historical use of intermediate outcomes, reviewed methods of other evidence-based guideline-making bodies, consulted with other experts, and reviewed scientific literature. Most important were the established criteria for causation, tenets of evidence-based medicine, and consistency with its current standards. Studies that follow participants over time following early treatment, stratify patients according to treatment response, and adjust for important confounders can provide useful information about the association between intermediate and health outcomes. However, such studies remain susceptible to residual confounding. The USPSTF will exercise great caution when making a recommendation that depends on the evidence linking intermediate and health outcomes because of inherent evidence limitations.

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has developed and used rigorous methods to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services to promote health and well-being for all Americans. Recommendations are based on the evidence of magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms). Expert opinion is not substituted when evidence is lacking. Evidence gaps are common. Few preventive services are supported by high-quality studies that directly and comprehensively determine the overall magnitude of benefits and harms in the same study. When assessing the body of evidence, studies may not have been conducted in primary care settings, studies may not have sufficiently included populations of interest, and long-term outcomes may not have been directly assessed. When direct evidence is not available, the USPSTF uses the methodologies of applicability to determine whether evidence can be generalized to an asymptomatic primary care population; coherence to link bodies of evidence and create an indirect evidence pathway; extrapolation to make inferences across the indirect evidence pathway, extend evidence to populations not specifically studied, consider service delivery intervals, and infer long-term outcomes; and conceptual bounding to set theoretical lower or upper limits for plausible benefits or harms. The USPSTF extends the evidence only so far as to maintain at least moderate certainty that its findings are preserved. This manuscript details with examples of how the USPSTF uses these methods to make recommendations that truly reflect the evidence.

Unhealthy alcohol use is a leading causes of preventable death in the United States. Reducing unhealthy alcohol use should be a high priority for health care providers. Well-validated screening instruments are available, and behavioral counseling interventions delivered in primary care can reduce risky drinking. For people with alcohol use disorder, treatment programs with or without medication can reduce consumption and promote abstinence. To overcome barriers to implementation of screening for alcohol use and subsequent delivery of appropriate interventions in primary care settings, support systems, changes in staffing or roles, formal protocols, and additional provider and staff training may be required.

BACKGROUND The emerging dual imperatives of personalized medicine and technologic advances make population screening for preventable conditions resulting from genetic alterations a realistic possibility. Lynch syndrome is a potential screening target due to its prevalence, penetrance, and the availability of well-established, preventive interventions. However, while population screening may lower incidence of preventable conditions, implementation without evidence may lead to unintentional harms. We examined the literature to determine whether evidence exists that screening for Lynch-associated mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations leads to improved overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or quality of life. Documenting evidence and gaps is critical to implementing genomic approaches in public health and guiding future research. MATERIALS AND METHODS Our 2014-2015 systematic review identified studies comparing screening with no screening in the general population, and controlled studies assessing analytic validity of targeted next-generation sequencing, and benefits or harms of interventions or screening. We conducted meta-analyses for the association between early or more frequent colonoscopies and health outcomes. RESULTS Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria. No adequate evidence directly addressed the main question or the harms of screening in the general population. Meta-analyses found relative reductions of 68% for colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk: 0.32, 95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.43, three cohort studies, 590 participants) and 78% for all-cause mortality (relative risk: 0.22, 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.56, three cohort studies, 590 participants) for early or more frequent colonoscopies among family members of people with cancer who also had an associated MMR gene mutation. CONCLUSION Inadequate evidence exists examining harms and benefits of population-based screening for Lynch syndrome. Lack of evidence highlights the need for data that directly compare benefits and harms.

Importance Hearing loss is common in older adults and associated with adverse health and social outcomes. Objective To update the evidence review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through January 17, 2020; references; and experts; literature surveillance through October 8, 2020. Study selection English-language studies of accuracy, screening, and interventions for screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss. Data extraction and synthesis Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of screening test accuracy studies. Main outcomes and measures Quality of life and function, other health and social outcomes, test accuracy, and harms. Results Forty-one studies (N = 26 386) were included, 18 of which were new since the previous review. One trial enrolling US veterans (n = 2305) assessed the benefits of screening; there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing a minimum clinically important difference in hearing-related function at 1 year (36%-40% in the screened groups vs 36% in the nonscreened group). Thirty-four studies (n = 23 228) evaluated test accuracy. For detecting mild hearing loss (>20-25 dB), single-question screening had a pooled sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%) and a pooled specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68%-83%) (10 studies, n = 12 637); for detecting moderate hearing loss (>35-40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) and pooled specificity was 74% (95% CI, 59%-85%) (6 studies, n = 8774). In 5 studies (n = 2820) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening to detect moderate hearing loss (>40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 52%-81%) and pooled specificity was 78% (95% CI, 67%-86%). Six trials (n = 853) evaluated amplification vs control in populations with screen-detected or recently detected hearing loss over 6 weeks to 4 months. Five measured hearing-related function via the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; only 3 that enrolled veterans (n = 684) found a significant difference considered to represent a minimal important difference (>18.7 points). Few trials reported on other eligible outcomes, and no studies reported on harms of screening or interventions. Conclusions and relevance Several screening tests can adequately detect hearing loss in older adults; no studies reported on the harms of screening or treatment. Evidence showing benefit from hearing aids on hearing-related function among adults with screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss is limited to studies enrolling veterans.

Importance Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study selection English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data extraction and synthesis Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main outcomes and measures Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and relevance Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Numerous guidelines have been developed over the past decade regarding treatments for Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, given differences in guideline recommendations, some uncertainty exists regarding the selection of effective PTSD therapies. The current manuscript assessed the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and adverse effects of psychological treatments for adults with PTSD. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PILOTS, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science. Two reviewers independently selected trials. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE). We included 64 trials; patients generally had severe PTSD. Evidence supports efficacy of exposure therapy (high SOE) including the manualized version Prolonged Exposure (PE); cognitive therapy (CT), cognitive processing therapy (CPT), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-mixed therapies (moderate SOE); eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and narrative exposure therapy (low-moderate SOE). Effect sizes for reducing PTSD symptoms were large (e.g., Cohen's d ~-1.0 or more compared with controls). Numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that individuals at high risk for lung cancer consider benefits and harms before pursuing lung cancer screening. Medical centers develop websites for their lung cancer screening programs, but to date little is known about the websites' portrayal of benefits and harms or what next steps they recommend for individuals considering screening.To assess the presentation of potential benefits and harms and recommended next steps on lung cancer screening program websites.Cross-sectional content analysis of 162 lung cancer screening program websites of academic medical centers (n = 81) and state-matched community medical centers (n = 81) that were randomly selected from American College of Radiology lung cancer screening-designated centers was conducted. The study was performed from December 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019.Website presentation of screening-associated benefits and harms was the primary outcome. Benefit was defined as any description related to the potential reduction in lung cancer mortality. Harms were based on the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and included false positives, false negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. The secondary outcome was next steps that are recommended by websites.Overall, the 162 lung cancer screening program websites described the potential benefits more frequently than they described any potential harms (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P .01). False-positive findings were the most frequently reported (72 [44%]) potential harm. Community centers were less likely than academic centers to report any potential harm (32 [40%] vs 46 [57%], P = .03), potential harm from radiation (20 [25%] vs 35 [43%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (0% vs 11 [14%], P .01). One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals personally consider the potential benefits and harms of screening; community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02). Most institutions (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few institutions (35 [22%]) recommended that individuals discuss benefits and harms with a health care professional.Information on public-facing websites of US lung cancer screening programs appears to lack balance with respect to portrayal of potential benefits and harms of screening. Important harms, such as overdiagnosis, were commonly ignored in the sites evaluated, and most of the centers did not explicitly guide individuals toward a guideline-recommended, shared decision-making discussion of harms and benefits.

Importance Intimate partner violence (IPV), elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults are common and result in adverse health outcomes. Objective To review the evidence on screening and interventions for IPV, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 4, 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018. Study Selection English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs), studies evaluating test accuracy, and cohort studies with a concurrent control group assessing harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled, primarily because of heterogeneity of populations, interventions, and outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures Abuse or neglect, morbidity caused by abuse, test accuracy, and harms. Results Thirty studies were included (N = 14 959). Three RCTs (n = 3759) compared IPV screening with no screening; none found significant improvements in outcomes (eg, IPV or quality of life) over 3 to 18 months and 2 (n = 935) reported no harms of screening. Nine studies assessed tools to detect any past-year or current IPV in women; for past-year IPV (5 studies [n = 6331]), sensitivity of 5 tools ranged from 65% to 87% and specificity ranged from 80% to 95%. The accuracy of 5 tools (4 studies [n = 1795]) for detecting current abuse varied widely; sensitivity ranged from 46% to 94% and specificity ranged from 38% to 95%. Eleven RCTs (n = 6740) evaluated interventions for women with screen-detected IPV. Two enrolling pregnant women (n = 575) found significantly less IPV among women in the intervention group: 1 home visiting intervention (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.34 [95% CI, −0.59 to −0.08]) and 1 behavioral counseling intervention for multiple risks (IPV, smoking, depression, tobacco exposure) (SMD, −0.40 [95% CI, −0.68 to −0.12]). No studies evaluated screening or interventions for elder abuse or abuse of vulnerable adults. One study assessing a screening tool for elder abuse had poor accuracy (sensitivity, 46% and specificity, 73% for detecting physical or verbal abuse). Conclusions and Relevance Although available screening tools may reasonably identify women experiencing IPV, trials of IPV screening in adult women did not show a reduction in IPV or improvement in quality of life over 3 to 18 months. Limited evidence suggested that home visiting and behavioral counseling interventions that address multiple risk factors may lead to reduced IPV among pregnant or postpartum women. No studies assessed screening or treatment for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable adults.

BACKGROUND: The transition from pediatric to adult care is a critical period for young adults with childhood-onset conditions. General internists are tasked with participating in the care of this vulnerable population. Existing guidelines regarding transition do not fully address structural or organizational characteristics of practices that facilitate transition. Moreover, literature regarding transition has focused on pediatric subspecialty settings, leaving internists with little guidance after transfer. OBJECTIVES: To better understand post-transfer transitional care by describing care models that primary care providers have implemented, and examining common features of generalist physicians’ experiences providing transitional care. DESIGN: Qualitative methods, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen generalist-trained physicians from across the USA, engaged in transition-focused and/or ongoing care of adolescents and young adults with childhood-onset conditions. APPROACH: Content and grounded theory analyses. KEY RESULTS: Participants included nineteen physicians from seventeen institutions. Most (89%) were from academic medical centers. About 80% had completed a combined internal medicine-pediatrics residency. About 70% worked with clinic staff who were dedicated to transition. Practice structures fell into four main care models: (1) primary care in adult settings; (2) transition support and primary care in pediatric settings; (3) a blend of pediatric and adult care elements forming a bridge during transition; and (4) a transition consultative service. Most provided primary care for adults with childhood-onset conditions within larger adult-oriented primary care practices. Common features across interviews included taking extra time with patients both during and between visits and an interdisciplinary team-based approach. Shared practice strategies and philosophies emphasized care coordination, focus on the whole patient beyond immediate health concerns, and willingness to learn from practice and from families. CONCLUSIONS: Participants used disparate care models. Common features and strategies among interviews highlight key functions and attributes of transitional care across settings, suggest important elements of care post-transfer, and clarify the role of generalists.

To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients discharged from the emergency department (ED) by hospitalist physicians.Retrospective cohort study at a tertiary academic medical center.We used consultation Current Procedural Technology codes to identify patients discharged from the ED after referral for hospitalist admission from April 2011 to April 2014. We report patient demographics and primary diagnoses. Main outcome measures included return to the ED, hospitalization, or mortality, all within 30 days.There were 710 discharges from the ED for 670 patients referred for hospitalist admission; 21.7% returned to the ED, 12.3% were hospitalized, and 0.4% died within 30 days. Chest pain was the most common diagnosis (38.2%); 18.1% of these patients returned to the ED within 30 days. Patients with the following 3 diagnoses returned to the ED most frequently: sickle cell disease (82.4%), alcohol-related diagnoses (43.5%), and abdominal pain (35.7%). In multivariate analysis, abdominal pain (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; P.001) and alcohol dependence (OR, 3.1; P = .003) increased the odds of ED revisits, whereas syncope (OR, 0.23; P = .049) reduced the odds. Chest pain reduced the odds of hospitalization (OR, 0.37; P = .005).A majority of patients discharged from the ED after referral for hospitalist admission did not return to the ED within 30 days, and the 30-day hospitalization rate was low. Our data suggest that hospitalists can safely aid patients by reducing the costs and adverse outcomes associated with unnecessary hospitalization.

Background The management of histologically dysplastic naevi (HDN) with re-excision vs. observation remains controversial because of lack of evidence about associated melanoma outcomes. Objectives To assess published data on the development of biopsy-site primary cutaneous melanoma among biopsy-proven HDN managed with either re-excision or observation. Methods A systematic review of all published data: a total of 5293 records were screened, 18 articles were assessed in full text and 12 studies met inclusion criteria. No controlled trials were identified. Results Most studies (11 of 12, 92%) were retrospective chart reviews, and one was both a cross-sectional and cohort study. Many studies (nine of 12, 75%) had no head-to-head comparison groups and either only reported HDN that were re-excised or observed. A total of 2673 (1535 observed vs. 1138 re-excised) HDN of various grades were included. Follow-up varied between 2 weeks and 30 years. Nine studies reported that no melanomas developed. Eleven biopsy-site melanomas developed across three of the studies, six among observed lesions (0·39%) and five among re-excised lesions (0·44%). Conclusions Based upon the available evidence the rates of biopsy-site primary melanoma were similarly low among observed lesions and re-excised lesions. This suggests that HDNs can be observed with minimal adverse melanoma-associated outcomes. However, all included articles were of low quality and further prospective trials could better guide clinical decision making.

The use of antipsychotics, particularly second generation antipsychotics, among children and adolescents has increased markedly during the past 20 years. Existing evidence gaps make this practice controversial and hinder treatment decision-making. This article describes and prioritizes future research needs regarding antipsychotic treatment in youth, focusing on within-class and between-class drug comparisons with regard to key population subgroups, efficacy and effectiveness outcomes, and adverse event outcomes. Using as a foundation a recent systematic review of antipsychotic treatment among youth, which was completed by a different Evidence-based Practice Center, we worked with a diverse group of 12 stakeholders representing researchers, funders, health care providers, patients, and families to identify and prioritize research needs. From an initial list of 16 evidence gaps, we enumerated 6 high-priority research needs: 1) long-term comparative effectiveness across all psychiatric disorders; 2) comparative long-term risks of adverse outcomes; 3) short-term risks of adverse events; 4) differentials of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety for population subgroups; 5) comparative effectiveness among those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and disruptive behavior disorders and common comorbidities; 6) comparative effectiveness among those with bipolar disorder and common comorbidities. In this article, we describe these future research needs in detail and discuss study designs that could be used to address them.

Importance Preschool vision screening could allow detection and treatment of vision abnormalities during a critical developmental stage, preserving function and quality of life. Objective To review the evidence on screening for and treatment of amblyopia, its risk factors, and refractive error in children aged 6 months to 5 years to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and trial registries through June 2016; references; and experts, with surveillance of the literature through June 7, 2017. Study Selection English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies that evaluated screening, studies evaluating test accuracy, RCTs of treatment vs inactive controls, and cohort studies or case-control studies assessing harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Studies were not quantitatively pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Main Outcomes and Measures Visual acuity, amblyopia, school performance, functioning, quality of life, test accuracy, testability, and harms. Results Forty studies were included (N = 34 709); 34 evaluated test accuracy. No RCTs compared screening with no screening, and no studies evaluated school performance, function, or quality of life. Studies directly assessing earlier or more intensive screening were limited by high attrition. Positive likelihood ratios were between 5 and 10 for amblyopia risk factors or nonamblyogenic refractive error in most studies of test accuracy and were greater than 10 in most studies evaluating combinations of clinical tests. Inability to cooperate may limit use of some tests in children younger than 3 years. Studies with low prevalence ( 75%). Among children with amblyopia risk factors (eg, strabismus or anisometropia), patching improved visual acuity of the amblyopic eye by a mean of less than 1 line on a standard chart after 5 to 12 weeks for children pretreated with glasses (2 RCTs, 240 participants); more children treated with patching than with no patching experienced improvement of at least 2 lines (45% vs 21%;P = .003; 1 RCT, 180 participants). Patching plus glasses improved visual acuity by about 1 line after 1 year (0.11 logMAR [95% CI, 0.05-0.17]) for children not pretreated with glasses (1 RCT, 177 participants). Glasses alone improved visual acuity by less than 1 line after 1 year (0.08 logMAR [95% CI, 0.02-0.15], 1 RCT, 177 participants). Conclusions and Relevance Studies directly evaluating the effectiveness of screening were limited and do not establish whether vision screening in preschool children is better than no screening. Indirect evidence supports the utility of multiple screening tests for identifying preschool children at higher risk for vision problems and the effectiveness of some treatments for improving visual acuity outcomes.

Background: It is unclear whether testing for novel risk factors, such as a cardiovascular genetic risk score (cGRS), improves clinical decision making or health outcomes when used for targeting statin initiation in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cGRS testing to inform clinical decision making about statin initiation in individuals with low-to-intermediate (2.5%–7.5%) 10-year predicted risk of ASCVD. Methods and Results: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for a 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism cGRS comparing 4 test/treat strategies: treat all, treat none, test/treat if cGRS is high, and test/treat if cGRS is intermediate or high. We tested a set of clinical scenarios of men and women, aged 45 to 65 years, with 10-year ASCVD risks between 2.5% and 7.5%. Our primary outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Under base case assumptions for statin disutility and cost, the preferred strategy is to treat all patients with ASCVD risk >2.5% without cGRS testing. For certain clinical scenarios, such as a 57-year-old man with a 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5%, cGRS testing can be cost-effective under a limited set of assumptions; for example, when statins cost $15 per month and statin disutility is 0.013 (ie, willing to trade 3 months of life in perfect health to avoid 20 years of statin therapy), the preferred strategy (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) is to test and treat if cGRS is intermediate or high. Overall, the results were not sensitive to assumptions about statin efficacy and harms. Conclusions: Testing for a 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism cGRS is generally not a cost-effective approach for targeting statin therapy in the primary prevention of ASCVD for low- to intermediate-risk patients.

Introduction Groups making recommendations need evidence about whether preventive services improve health outcomes (HOs). When such evidence is not available, groups may choose to evaluate evidence about effects on intermediate outcomes (IOs) and the link between IOs and HOs. This paper aims to describe considerations for assessing the evidence linking changes in IOs to changes in HOs. Methods Working definitions of IOs, HOs, and other outcomes were developed. All current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations through April 2016 were examined to identify how evidence of the IO–HO link was gathered and the criteria that appeared to be used to determine the adequacy of the evidence. Methods of other expert and recommendation-making groups were also examined. Results Forty-four USPSTF recommendations involved a relevant IO–HO link. The approaches used most commonly to gather evidence about the link were selected review (19 of 44, 43%) and systematic review (12 of 44, 27%). Some key considerations when assessing the adequacy of evidence about the IO–HO link include adjustment for confounding, proximity of the IO to the HO in the causal pathway, and independence of IO–HO relationship from specific treatments. Conclusions Considerations were identified for recommendation-making groups to use when gathering and assessing the adequacy of evidence about the IO–HO link. Using a standard set of written principles could improve the transparency of assessments of the IO–HO link, especially if used together with judgment in a reasoned conjecture and refutation process. Ideally, the process would result in an estimate of the magnitude of change in HOs that is expected for specified changes in IOs.

Background Guideline developers and other users of systematic reviews need information about whether a medical or preventive intervention is likely to benefit or harm some patients more (or less) than the average in order to make clinical practice recommendations tailored to these populations. However, guidance is lacking on how to include patient subpopulation considerations into the systematic reviews upon which guidelines are often based. In this article, we describe methods developed to consistently consider the evidence for relevant subpopulations in systematic reviews conducted to support primary care clinical preventive service recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Proposed approach Our approach is grounded in our experience conducting systematic reviews for the USPSTF and informed by a review of existing guidance on subgroup analysis and subpopulation issues. We developed and refined our approach based on feedback from the Subpopulation Workgroup of the USPSTF and pilot testing on reviews being conducted for the USPSTF. This paper provides processes and tools for incorporating evidence-based identification of important sources of potential heterogeneity of intervention effects into all phases of systematic reviews. Key components of our proposed approach include targeted literature searches and key informant interviews to identify the most important subpopulations a priori during topic scoping, a framework for assessing the credibility of subgroup analyses reported in studies, and structured investigation of sources of heterogeneity of intervention effects. Conclusions Further testing and evaluation are necessary to refine this proposed approach and demonstrate its utility to the producers and users of systematic reviews beyond the context of the USPSTF. Gaps in the evidence on important subpopulations identified by routinely applying this process in systematic reviews will also inform future research needs.

Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for unhealthy alcohol use but little is known about how best to do so. We used quality improvement techniques to implement a systematic approach to screening and counseling primary care patients for unhealthy alcohol use. Components included use of validated screening and assessment instruments; an evidence-based two-visit counseling intervention using motivational interviewing techniques for those with risky drinking behaviors who did not have an alcohol use disorder (AUD); shared decision making about treatment options for those with an AUD; support materials for providers and patients; and training in motivational interviewing for faculty and residents. Over the course of one year, we screened 52% (N = 5,352) of our clinic's patients and identified 294 with positive screens. Of those 294, appropriate screening-related assessments and interventions were documented for 168 and 72 patients, respectively. Although we successfully implemented a systematic screening program and structured processes of care, ongoing quality improvement efforts are needed to screen the rest of our patients and to improve the consistency with which we provide and document appropriate interventions.

Importance Many adverse health outcomes are associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Objective To review primary care–relevant evidence on screening adults for OSA, test accuracy, and treatment of OSA, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 2015, references, and experts, with surveillance of the literature through October 5, 2016. Study Selection English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs); studies evaluating accuracy of screening questionnaires or prediction tools, diagnostic accuracy of portable monitors, or association between apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and health outcomes among community-based participants. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. When multiple similar studies were available, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), AHI, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores, blood pressure, mortality, cardiovascular events, motor vehicle crashes, quality of life, and harms. Results A total of 110 studies were included (N = 46 188). No RCTs compared screening with no screening. In 2 studies (n = 702), the screening accuracy of the multivariable apnea prediction score followed by home portable monitor testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI ≥30 and ESS score >10) was AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90), respectively, but the studies oversampled high-risk participants and those with OSA and OSA syndrome. No studies prospectively evaluated screening tools to report calibration or clinical utility for improving health outcomes. Meta-analysis found that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with sham was significantly associated with reduction of AHI (weighted mean difference [WMD], −33.8 [95% CI, −42.0 to −25.6]; 13 trials, 543 participants), excessive sleepiness assessed by ESS score (WMD, −2.0 [95% CI, −2.6 to −1.4]; 22 trials, 2721 participants), diurnal systolic blood pressure (WMD, −2.4 points [95% CI, −3.9 to −0.9]; 15 trials, 1190 participants), and diurnal diastolic blood pressure (WMD, −1.3 points [95% CI, −2.2 to −0.4]; 15 trials, 1190 participants). CPAP was associated with modest improvement in sleep-related quality of life (Cohen d, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.42]; 13 trials, 2325 participants). Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) and weight loss programs were also associated with reduced AHI and excessive sleepiness. Common adverse effects of CPAP and MADs included oral or nasal dryness, irritation, and pain, among others. In cohort studies, there was a consistent association between AHI and all-cause mortality. Conclusions and Relevance There is uncertainty about the accuracy or clinical utility of all potential screening tools. Multiple treatments for OSA reduce AHI, ESS scores, and blood pressure. Trials of CPAP and other treatments have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes, except for modest improvement in sleep-related quality of life.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and 2 or more prior antidepressant treatment failures (often referred to as treatment-resistant depression [TRD]). These patients are less likely to recover with medications alone and often consider nonpharmacologic treatments such as rTMS. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for studies comparing rTMS with a sham-controlled treatment in TRD patients ages 18 years or older. Study selection We included 18 good- or fair-quality TRD studies published from January 1, 1980, through March 20, 2013. Data extraction We abstracted relevant data, assessed each study's internal validity, and graded strength of evidence for change in depressive severity, response rates, and remission rates. Results rTMS was beneficial compared with sham for all outcomes. rTMS produced a greater decrease in depressive severity (high strength of evidence), averaging a clinically meaningful decrease on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) of more than 4 points compared with sham (mean decrease = -4.53; 95% CI, -6.11 to -2.96). rTMS resulted in greater response rates (high strength of evidence); those receiving rTMS were more than 3 times as likely to respond as patients receiving sham (relative risk = 3.38; 95% CI, 2.24 to 5.10). Finally, rTMS was more likely to produce remission (moderate strength of evidence); patients receiving rTMS were more than 5 times as likely to achieve remission as those receiving sham (relative risk = 5.07; 95% CI, 2.50 to 10.30). Limited evidence and variable treatment parameters prevented conclusions about which specific treatment options are more effective than others. How long these benefits persist remains unclear. Conclusions For MDD patients with 2 or more antidepressant treatment failures, rTMS is a reasonable, effective consideration.