Search

This research investigates the microbial degradation of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastics by Bacillus sp., Proteus sp., Pseudomonas sp., and Salmonella sp. The study employs a systematic approach, isolating microorganisms from plastic-contaminated soil and subjecting them to a series of biochemical tests for identification. The research evaluates the weight loss of LDPE and HDPE over two months, revealing varying degrees of degradation among the bacterial strains. Results suggest a potential greater susceptibility of HDPE to microbial degradation. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis provides high-resolution images of the plastic surface, indicating structural changes and biofilm formation during degradation. The findings highlight the unique enzymatic capabilities of each strain and underscore the significance of SEM in elucidating microbial interactions with plastics. The study prompts discussions on optimization, synergistic effects, and the identification of key enzymes in plastic degradation, emphasizing the importance of microbial strategies for waste management. Overall, this research contributes valuable insights into the potential of bacterial strains for addressing plastic pollution challenges.

The dishevelled gene of Drosophila is required to establish coherent arrays of polarized cells and is also required to establish segments in the embryo. Here, we show that loss of dishevelled function in clones, in double heterozygotes with wingless mutants and in flies bearing a weak dishevelled transgene leads to patterning defects which phenocopy defects observed in wingless mutants alone. Further, polarized cells in all body segments require dishevelled function to establish planar cell polarity, and some wingless alleles and dishevelled; wingless double heterozygotes exhibit bristle polarity defects identical to those seen in dishevelled alone. The requirement for dishevelled in establishing polarity in cell autonomous. The dishevelled gene encodes a novel intracellular protein that shares an amino acid motif with several other proteins that are found associated with cell junctions. Clonal analysis of dishevelled in leg discs provides a unique opportunity to test the hypothesis that the wingless dishevelled interaction species at least one of the circumferential positional values predicted by the polar coordinate model. We propose that dishevelled encodes an intracellular protein required to respond to a wingless signal and that this interaction is essential for establishing both cell polarity and cell identity.

Background: Patients are vulnerable to poor quality, fragmented care as they transition from hospital to home. Few studies examine the discharge process from the perspectives of multiple healthcare professionals.Objective: To understand care transitions from the perspective of diverse healthcare professionals, and identify recommendations for process improvement.Design: Cross sectional qualitative study.Participants and Setting: Clinicians, care teams, and administrators from the inpatient general medicine services at one urban, academic hospital; two outpatient primary care clinics; and one Medicaid managed care plan.Approach: We conducted 13 focus groups and two in-depth interviews with participants prior to initiating a hospital-funded, multi-component transitional care intervention for uninsured and low-income publicly insured patients, the Care Transitions Innovation (C-TraIn). We used thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and a cross-case comparative analysis to describe variation by participant role and setting.Key Results: Poor transitional care reflected healthcare system fragmentation, limiting the ability of healthcare professionals to provide optimal patient care. Lack of standardized processes, poor multidisciplinary communication within the hospital, and fragmented communication across settings led to chaotic, unsystematic transitions, poor patient outcomes, and feelings of futility and dissatisfaction among providers. Patients with complex psychosocial needs were especially vulnerable during care transitions. Recommended changes to improve transitional care included improving hospital multidisciplinary hospital rounds, clarifying accountability as patients move across settings, standardizing discharge processes, and providing additional medical staff training.Conclusions: Hospital to home care transitions are critical junctures that can impact health outcomes, experience of care, and costs. Transitional care quality improvement initiatives must address system fragmentation, reduce communication barriers within and between settings, and ensure adequate professional training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefits and harms of intensive insulin therapy (IIT) titrated to strict glycemic targets in hospitalized patients remain uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate the benefits and harms of IIT in hospitalized patients. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1950 to January 2010, reference lists, experts, and unpublished sources. Study Selection: English-language randomized, controlled trials comparing protocols titrated to strict or less strict glycemic targets. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently abstracted data from each study on sample, setting, glycemic control interventions, glycemic targets, mean glucose levels achieved, and outcomes. Results were grouped by patient population or setting. A random-effects model was used to combine trial data on short-term mortality (<=28 days), long-term mortality (90 or 180 days), infection, length of stay, and hypoglycemia. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to rate the overall body of evidence for each outcome. Data Synthesis: In a meta-analysis of 21 trials in intensive care unit, perioperative care, myocardial infarction, and stroke or brain injury settings, IIT did not affect short-term mortality (relative risk, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.07]). No consistent evidence showed that IIT reduced long-term mortality, infection rates, length of stay, or the need for renal replacement therapy. No evidence of benefit from IIT was reported in any hospital setting, although the best evidence for lack of benefit was in intensive care unit settings. Data combined from 10 trials showed that IIT was associated with a high risk for severe hypoglycemia (relative risk, 6.00 [CI, 4.06 to 8.87]; P < 0.001). Risk for IIT-associated hypoglycemia was increased in all hospital settings. Limitations: Methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies limit the data in perioperative care, myocardial infarction, and stroke or brain injury settings. Differences in insulin protocols and patient and hospital characteristics may affect generalizability across treatment settings. Conclusion: No consistent evidence demonstrates that IIT targeted to strict glycemic control compared with less strict glycemic control improves health outcomes in hospitalized patients. Furthermore, IIT is associated with an increased risk for severe hypoglycemia. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) for patients with type 2 diabetes. USPSTF is a group of health experts that offer advice about preventive health care. They explain that diabetes mellitus is a common disease that intervenes with the body's ability to store energy from food and testing people who have no symptoms to try to detect disease early can be helpful.

Abstract: The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) since 2015. As ASAM's CPG work continues to develop, it maintains an organizational priority to establish rigorous standards for the trustworthy production of these important documents. In keeping with ASAM's mission to define and promote evidence-based best practices in addiction prevention, treatment, and recovery, ASAM has rigorously updated its CPG methodology to be in line with evolving international standards. The CPG Methodology and Oversight Subcommittee was formed to establish and publish a methodology for the development of ASAM CPGs and to develop an ASAM CPG strategic plan. This article provides a focused overview of the ASAM CPG methodology., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=L24-0118.

Objective: To determine whether prenatal cannabis use alone increases the likelihood of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Study Design: We searched bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar from inception through February 14, 2022. Cohort or case-control studies with prespecified fetal or neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with prenatal cannabis use. Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB; <37 weeks of gestation), small-for-gestational-age (SGA), birthweight (grams), and perinatal mortality. Two independent reviewers screened studies. Studies were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second using a predefined template. Risk of bias assessment of studies, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for evaluating the certainty of evidence for select outcomes were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, using adjusted and unadjusted effect estimates, to compare groups according to prenatal exposure to cannabis use status. Results: Fifty-three studies were included. Except for birthweight, unadjusted and adjusted meta-analyses had similar results. We found very-low- to low-certainty evidence that cannabis use during pregnancy was significantly associated with greater odds of PTB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.69; I 2 , 93%; p =0.0001), SGA (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.05; I 2 , 86%; p <0.0001), and perinatal mortality (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.62; I 2 , 0%; p <0.0001), but not significantly different for birthweight (mean difference, -40.69 g; 95% CI, -124.22 to 42.83; I 2 , 85%; p =0.29). Because of substantial heterogeneity, we also conducted a narrative synthesis and found comparable results to meta-analyses. Conclusion: Prenatal cannabis use was associated with greater odds of PTB, SGA, and perinatal mortality even after accounting for prenatal tobacco use. However, our confidence in these findings is limited. Limitations of most existing studies was the failure to not include timing or quantity of cannabis use. This review can help guide health care providers with counseling, management, and addressing the limited existing safety data. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020172343.

Importance: Intensive primary care interventions have been promoted to reduce hospitalization rates and improve health outcomes for medically complex patients, but evidence of their efficacy is limited., Objective: To assess the efficacy of a multidisciplinary ambulatory intensive care unit (A-ICU) intervention on health care utilization and patient-reported outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Streamlined Unified Meaningfully Managed Interdisciplinary Team (SUMMIT) randomized clinical trial used a wait-list control design and was conducted at a health care clinic for patients experiencing homelessness in Portland, Oregon. The first patient was enrolled in August 2016, and the last patient was enrolled in November 2019. Included patients had 1 or more hospitalizations in the prior 6 months and 2 or more chronic medical conditions, substance use disorder, or mental illness. Data analysis was performed between March and May 2021., Intervention: The A-ICU included a team manager, a pharmacist, a nurse, care coordinators, social workers, and physicians. Activities included comprehensive 90-minute intake, transitional care coordination, and flexible appointments, with reduced panel size. Enhanced usual care (EUC), consisting of team-based primary care with access to community health workers and mental health, addiction treatment, and pharmacy services, served as the comparator. Participants who received EUC joined the A-ICU intervention after 6 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the difference in rates of hospitalization (primary outcome), emergency department (ED) visits, and primary care physician (PCP) visits per person over 6 months (vs the prior 6 months). Patient-reported outcomes included changes in patient activation, experience, health-related quality of life, and self-rated health at 6 months (vs baseline). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using a linear mixed-effects model with a random intercept for each patient to examine the association between study group and outcomes., Results: This study randomized 159 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [9.8] years) to the A-ICU SUMMIT intervention (n = 80) or to EUC (n = 79). The majority of participants were men (102 [65.8%]) and most were White (121 [76.1%]). A total of 64 participants (41.0%) reported having unstable housing at baseline. Six-month hospitalizations decreased in both the A-ICU and EUC groups, with no difference between them (mean [SE], -0.6 [0.5] vs -0.9 [0.5]; difference, 0.3 [95% CI, -1.0 to 1.5]). Emergency department use did not differ between groups (mean [SE], -2.0 [1.0] vs 0.9 [1.0] visits per person; difference, -1.1 [95% CI, -3.7 to 1.6]). Primary care physician visits increased in the A-ICU group (mean [SE], 4.2 [1.6] vs -2.0 [1.6] per person; difference, 6.1 [95% CI, 1.8 to 10.4]). Patients in the A-ICU group reported improved social functioning (mean [SE], 4.7 [2.0] vs -1.1 [2.0]; difference, 5.8 [95% CI, 0.3 to 11.2]) and self-rated health (mean [SE], 0.7 [0.3] vs -0.2 [0.3]; difference, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.1 to 1.8]) compared with patients in the EUC group. No differences in patient activation or experience were observed., Conclusions and Relevance: The A-ICU intervention did not change hospital or ED utilization at 6 months but increased PCP visits and improved patient well-being. Longer-term studies are needed to evaluate whether these observed improvements lead to eventual changes in acute care utilization., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03224858.

Background: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers., Methods: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives., Results: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%)., Conclusions: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations., Methods: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety., Results: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy., Conclusions: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Merlin reports grants from Cambia Health Foundation outside the submitted work.

Background: The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States., Purpose: To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures., Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022., Study Selection: Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( n ≥1000) for harms., Data Extraction: Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE)., Data Synthesis: We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE)., Limitation: Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years., Conclusion: Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare., Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).

Introduction: Implementation of robot-assisted procedures is growing. Utilization within the country's largest healthcare network, the Veterans Health Administration, is unclear., Methods: A retrospective cohort study using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 2015 through December 2019. Trends in robot utilization for cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, and inguinal hernia repair were characterized nationally and regionally by Veterans Integrated Services Network. Patients, who underwent laparoscopic repairs for these procedures and open hernia repairs, were included to determine proportion performed robotically., Results: We identified 119,191 patients, of which 5689 (4.77%) received a robotic operation. The proportion of operations performed robotically increased from 1.49% to 10.55% (7.08-fold change; slope, 2.14% per year; 95% confidence interval [0.79%, 3.49%]). Ventral hernia repair had the largest growth in robotic procedures (1.51% to 13.94%; 9.23-fold change; slope, 2.86% per year; 95% confidence interval [1.04%, 4.68%]). Regions with the largest increase in robotic utilization were primarily along the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast., Conclusions: Robot utilization in general surgery is increasing at different rates across the United States in the Veterans Health Administration. Future studies should investigate the regional disparities and drivers of this approach., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The use of the robot in general surgery has exploded in the last decade. The Veterans Health Administration presents a unique opportunity to study differences between surgical approaches due to the ability to control for health system and insurance variability. This study compares clinical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic or open techniques for three general surgery procedures., Methods: A retrospective observational study using the Veterans Affair Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operative time, length of stay, and complications were compared for cholecystectomy (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic), ventral, and inguinal hernia repair (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic or open) from 2015 to 2019., Results: More than 80,000 cases were analyzed (21,652 cholecystectomy, 9214 ventral hernia repairs, and 51,324 inguinal hernia repairs). Median operative time was longer for all robot-assisted approaches as compared to laparoscopic or open techniques with the largest difference seen between open and robot-assisted primary ventral hernia repair (unadjusted difference of 93 min, P < 0.001). Median length of stay was between 1 and 4 d and significantly for robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs (versus open, P < 0.01; versus lap for recurrent hernia, P < 0.05). Specific postoperative outcomes of interest were overall low with few differences between techniques., Conclusions: While the robotic platform was associated with longer operative time, these findings must be interpreted in the context of a learning curve and indications for use (i.e., use of the robot for technically challenging cases). Our findings suggest that at the Veterans Health Administration, the robot is as safe a platform for common general surgery procedures as traditional approaches. Future studies should focus on patient-centered outcomes including pain and cosmesis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Despite demonstrated efficacy, medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) remain inaccessible to many patients, with barriers identified at the individual, clinic and system level. A wide array of implementation strategies have guided efforts to expand access to MOUD, with most centered around externally-facilitated approaches to practice change. While effective, such approaches may be inaccessible to those clinics and systems that lack the resources necessary to partner with an external team, suggesting a need to identify and describe change-processes that are internally developed and promoted., Methods: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we utilized qualitative interviews and ethnographic observation to investigate the planning, design and implementation of a locally-initiated process to expand access to MOUD within one health care system. All study documents were coded by a primary coder and secondary reviewer using a codebook designed for use with the CFIR. To analyze data, we reviewed text tagged by key codes, compared these textual excerpts both across and within documents, and organized findings into themes. Processes identified were mapped to established implementation science constructs and strategies., Results: Interviews with clinicians and administrators (n = 9) and ethnographic observation of planning meetings (n = 3) revealed how a self-appointed local team developed, established broad support for, and successfully implemented a Primary Care-based Buprenorphine Clinic and E-Consult Service to expand access to MOUD to patients across the health care system. First, national and local policy changes-including altered clinical practice guidelines, performance pay incentives regarding opioid prescribing, and a directive from VA Central Office increased individual staff and administrators' perception of the need for change and willingness to invest time and resources. Then, a self-appointed interdisciplinary team utilized cross-clinic meetings and information gathering to identify appropriate, and widely supported, models of care delivery and care consultation. Finally, the team increased staff investment in these change efforts by bringing them into the planning process and encouraging collaborative problem solving., Conclusions: This study reveals how a local team developed and built widespread support for new processes of care that were tailored to local needs and well-positioned for sustainability over time., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Context: There is great interest in intensive primary care (IPC) interventions to address the needs of medically and socially complex patients, however it is unknown how these interventions impact patient experience. Objective: Describe the experience of patients on the Streamlined Unified Meaningfully Managed Interdisciplinary Team (SUMMIT), an IPC for patients with complex needs at a federally qualified health center serving patients with high rates of homelessness. Study Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 25 patients enrolled in the SUMMIT intervention. We conducted a thematic analysis using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Results: Prior to SUMMIT, patients often felt it was difficult to engage with the healthcare system, in part due to their complex medical conditions, but also factors including prior trauma, poverty, substance use, and providers' stigma. We identified four themes related to how and why patients felt SUMMIT improved their care: 1) Investment: Patients perceived the team as truly invested in them and expressed how the team walked side by side in their care journeys to overcome stigma, low-self efficacy, and prior negative experiences with the healthcare system 2) Family: Patients reported feeling a strong sense of family with SUMMIT team members and believed that the team had genuine duty and obligation toward them, interacting with them in a non-judgmental, culturally competent manner. 3) Feeling valued: Patients expressed that the team's flexible design, continuity of team membership, care coordination and addressing unmet needs and social determinants led them to feel valued and hope. 4) Evolution of self-efficacy: Patients experienced improved self-efficacy, and were able to engage with health care proactively, instead of avoiding care. Conclusion: Medically and socially complex patients experience trauma and stigma that shape perceptions of care. Patients appreciated humanizing interactions with team members along with the additional support SUMMIT provided to overcome barriers to care. They spoke of the team as family members who valued them and they recognized how the program had helped them take a more active role in improving their own health. Our findings suggest that effectiveness of IPC interventions may lie, in part, on the use of team members who have the skills and commitment to deliver non-judgemental, culturally competent, longitudinal relationship-focused care., Competing Interests: Authors report nonen, (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objective: Previous pandemics may offer evidence on mediating factors that contributed to disparities in infection and poor outcomes, which could inform the effort to mitigate potential unequal outcomes during the current COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review sought to examine those factors., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane to May 2020. We included studies examining health disparities in adult U.S. populations during infectious disease epidemics or pandemics. Two investigators screened abstracts and full text. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle/Ottawa Scale or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist for Qualitative Studies., Results: Sixteen articles were included, of which 14 focused on health disparities during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Studies showed that disparities during the H1N1 pandemic were more related to differential exposure to the virus than to susceptibility or access to care. Overall, pandemic-related disparities emanate primarily from inequalities in social conditions that place racial and ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status populations at greater risk of exposure and infection, rather than individual-level factors such as health behaviors and comorbidities., Conclusions: Policy- and systems-level interventions should acknowledge and address these social determinants of heightened risk, and future research should evaluate the effects of such interventions to avoid further exacerbation of health inequities during the current and future pandemics., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Karli K. Kondo et al., 2022; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Background: We sought to identify interventions that reduced disparities in health outcomes in infectious disease outbreaks or natural disasters in the United States to understand whether these interventions could reduce health disparities in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and other databases to May 2020 to find studies that examined interventions to mitigate health inequalities in previous infectious disease pandemics or disasters. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Results: We included 14 articles (12 studies) and 5 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stakeholder meeting articles on pandemic influenza preparedness in marginalized populations. Studies called for intervention and engagement before pandemic or disaster onset. Several studies included interventions that could be adapted to COVID-19, including harnessing technology to reach disadvantaged populations, partnering with trusted community liaisons to deliver important messaging around disease mitigation, and using culturally specific communication methods and messages to best reach marginalized groups. Discussion: To our knowledge this is the first systematic review to examine interventions to mitigate health inequities during an infectious disease pandemic. However, given that we identified very few disparities-focused infectious disease intervention studies, we also included studies from the disaster response literature, which may not be as generalizable to the current context of COVID-19. Overall, community outreach and tailored communication are essential in disease mitigation. More research is needed to evaluate systemic interventions that target the distal determinants of poor health outcomes among marginalized populations during pandemics and natural disasters., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Beth E. Williams et al., 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

Background: Despite its widespread implementation, it is unclear whether Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) are safe and improve the delivery of care that patients desire. We sought to systematically review the influence of POLST on treatment intensity among patients with serious illness and/or frailty., Methods: We performed a systematic review of POLST and similar programs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, and PsycINFO, from inception through February 28, 2020. We included adults with serious illness and/or frailty with life expectancy <1 year. Primary outcomes included place of death and receipt of high-intensity treatment (i.e., hospitalization in the last 30- and 90-days of life, ICU admission in the last 30-days of life, and number of care setting transitions in last week of life)., Results: Among 104,554 patients across 20 observational studies, 27,090 had POLST. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The mean age of POLST users was 78.7 years, 55.3% were female, and 93.0% were white. The majority of POLST users (55.3%) had orders for comfort measures only. Most studies showed that, compared to full treatment orders on POLST, treatment limitations were associated with decreased in-hospital death and receipt of high-intensity treatment, particularly in pre-hospital settings. However, in the acute care setting, a sizable number of patients likely received POLST-discordant care. The overall strength of evidence was moderate based on eight retrospective cohort studies of good quality that showed a consistent, similar direction of outcomes with moderate-to-large effect sizes., Conclusion: We found moderate strength of evidence that treatment limitations on POLST may reduce treatment intensity among patients with serious illness. However, the evidence base is limited and demonstrates potential unintended consequences of POLST. We identify several important knowledge gaps that should be addressed to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of POLST., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: A growing body of research has examined adjunctive interventions supportive of engagement and retention in treatment among patients receiving buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). We conducted a systematic review of the literature addressing the effect on key outcomes of adjunctive interventions provided alongside standard medical management of buprenorphine in outpatient settings., Methods: We included prospective studies examining adults receiving buprenorphine paired with an adjunctive intervention for the treatment of OUD in an outpatient setting. Data sources included Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception through January 2020. Two raters independently reviewed full-text articles, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. Outcomes examined included abstinence, retention in treatment and non-addiction-related health outcomes., Results: The final review includes 20 manuscripts, 11 randomized control trials (RCTs), three secondary analyses of RCTs and six observational studies. Most studies examined psychosocial interventions (n = 14). Few examined complementary therapies (e.g., yoga; n = 2) or technological interventions (e.g., electronic pill dispensation; n = 3); one study examined an intervention addressing structural barriers to care (patient navigators; n = 1). Low risk of bias RCTs found no evidence that adding psychosocial interventions to buprenorphine treatment improves substance use outcomes., Conclusions: Research is needed to identify adjunctive interventions with potential to support medication adherence and addiction-related outcomes for patients engaged in buprenorphine treatment. Data from clinical trials suggest that lack of ready access to psychosocial treatments should not discourage clinicians from prescribing buprenorphine., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Importance: Over the last decade, cannabis has become more accessible through the proliferation of dispensaries in states that have legalized its use. Most patients using cannabis for medical purposes report getting advice from dispensaries, yet there has been little exploration of frontline dispensary staff practices., Objective: To describe the practices of frontline dispensary workers who interact with customers purchasing cannabis for medical purposes and assess whether dispensary practices are associated with medicalization of state cannabis laws (degree to which they resemble regulation of prescription or over-the-counter drugs) and statewide adult use., Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from February 13, 2020, to October 2, 2020, using an online survey tool. Potential respondents were eligible if they reported working in a dispensary that sells tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products and interacting with customers about cannabis purchases., Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant responses to questions about formulating customer recommendations and talking to customers about risks., Results: The 434 survey responses from 351 unique dispensaries were most often completed by individuals who identified as budtenders (40%), managers (32%), and pharmacists (13%). Most respondents reported basing customer recommendations on the customer's medical condition (74%), the experiences of other customers (70%), the customer's prior experience with cannabis (67%), and the respondent's personal experience (63%); fewer respondents relied on clinician input (40%), cost (45%), or inventory (12%). Most respondents routinely advised customers about safe storage and common adverse effects, but few counseled customers about cannabis use disorder, withdrawal, motor vehicle collision risk, or psychotic reactions. A higher state medicalization score was significantly associated with using employer training (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.67) and physician or clinician input (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43) as a basis for recommendation. Medicalization score was not associated with counseling about cannabis risks., Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study provides insight into how frontline dispensary staff base cannabis recommendations and counsel about risks. The findings may have utility for clinicians to counsel patients who purchase cannabis, customers who want to be prepared for a dispensary visit, and policy makers whose decisions affect cannabis laws.

Introduction: The number of readmission risk prediction models available has increased rapidly, and these models are used extensively for health decision-making. Unfortunately, readmission models can be subject to flaws in their development and validation, as well as limitations in their clinical usefulness., Objective: To critically appraise readmission models in the published literature using Delphi-based recommendations for their development and validation., Methods: We used the modified Delphi process to create Critical Appraisal of Models that Predict Readmission (CAMPR), which lists expert recommendations focused on development and validation of readmission models. Guided by CAMPR, two researchers independently appraised published readmission models in two recent systematic reviews and concurrently extracted data to generate reference lists of eligibility criteria and risk factors., Results: We found that published models (n=81) followed 6.8 recommendations (45%) on average. Many models had weaknesses in their development, including failure to internally validate (12%), failure to account for readmission at other institutions (93%), failure to account for missing data (68%), failure to discuss data preprocessing (67%) and failure to state the model's eligibility criteria (33%)., Conclusions: The high prevalence of weaknesses in model development identified in the published literature is concerning, as these weaknesses are known to compromise predictive validity. CAMPR may support researchers, clinicians and administrators to identify and prevent future weaknesses in model development., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: There are important differences in medical cannabis laws across the U.S.. However, prior studies investigating the effect of medical cannabis laws on outcomes disregard this heterogeneity. Findings from the body of literature using a simple dichotomous assessment of whether a particular state has enacted a medical cannabis law are equivocal or conflicting. To advance the science, a national advisory group of experts in medical cannabis developed and utilized a systematic methodology, the "medicalization of cannabis laws standardized scale" (MCLaSS), to characterize and quantify state laws' degree of medicalization, the extent to which medical cannabis is treated similarly to pharmaceutical medications., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of state-level medical cannabis laws in the U.S. Using the novel MCLaSS, we calculated seven domain scores (patient-clinician relationship, manufacturing and testing, product labeling, types of products, supply and dose limit, prescription drug monitoring program, and dispensing practices) and a summary score for each state which had enacted medical cannabis laws as of July 2019., Results: There is substantial heterogeneity in the degree of medicalization of states' medical cannabis laws, as demonstrated by the MCLaSS summary score, which ranged from 23 (least medicalized) to 86 (most medicalized)., Conclusion: This methodology will advance the evidence base about the impact of medical cannabis laws on patient and public health outcomes, which is urgently needed to ensure the development of policies that minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of medical cannabis., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The legalization of cannabis is expanding across the USA, and its use has increased significantly, including among Veterans. Although the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) abides by the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, it recently recommended that clinicians discuss cannabis with their patients. Little is known about VHA clinicians' perspectives on and knowledge of cannabis., Objective: We sought to better understand clinicians' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and communication with patients regarding cannabis., Methods: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 14 VHA clinicians. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis., Results: VA clinicians described ambivalence towards cannabis for therapeutic purposes and identified several factors that inhibit conversations about cannabis use with their patients including discomfort with the lack of product standardization; lack of research examining the effectiveness and risks of cannabis use; unfamiliarity with pharmacology, formulations, and dosing of cannabis; and uncertainty regarding VHA policy. Clinicians had differing views on cannabis in the context of the opioid crisis., Conclusions: VA clinicians face challenges in navigating the topic of medical cannabis. Educational materials about cannabis products, dose and harms would be helpful to clinicians., (Published by Oxford University Press 2021.)

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in patients with acute dyspnea in emergency department (ED) or inpatient settings to improve the diagnostic, treatment, and health outcomes of those with suspected congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax., Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based this guideline on a systematic review on the benefits, harms, and diagnostic test accuracy of POCUS; patient values and preferences; and costs of POCUS. The systematic review evaluated health outcomes, diagnostic timeliness, treatment decisions, and test accuracy. The critical health, diagnostic, and treatment outcomes evaluated were in-hospital mortality, time to diagnosis, and time to treatment. The important outcomes evaluated were intensive care unit admissions, correctness of diagnosis, disease-specific outcomes, hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. The critical test accuracy outcomes included false-positive results for suspected pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism and false-negative results for suspected congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pulmonary embolism. Important test accuracy outcomes included false-positive results for suspected congestive heart failure and false-negative and false-positive results for suspected pleural effusion. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method., Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute dyspnea in ED or inpatient settings., Recommendation: ACP suggests that clinicians may use point-of-care ultrasonography in addition to the standard diagnostic pathway when there is diagnostic uncertainty in patients with acute dyspnea in emergency department or inpatient settings (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the appropriate use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in hospitalized patients for initial or postextubation management of acute respiratory failure. It is based on the best available evidence on the benefits and harms of HFNO, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences., Methods: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of HFNO. The patient-centered health outcomes evaluated included all-cause mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day hospital readmissions, hospital-acquired pneumonia, days of intubation or reintubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU transfers, patient comfort, dyspnea, delirium, barotrauma, compromised nutrition, gastric dysfunction, functional independence at discharge, discharge disposition, and skin breakdown. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method., Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated in a hospital setting (including emergency departments, hospital wards, intermediate or step-down units, and ICUs)., Recommendation 1a: ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than noninvasive ventilation in hospitalized adults for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence)., Recommendation 1b: ACP suggests that clinicians use high-flow nasal oxygen rather than conventional oxygen therapy for hospitalized adults with postextubation acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Aims: Gulf War Illness (GWI) is a chronic multisymptom illness with debated etiology and pathophysiology. This systematic review catalogues studies of validated biological tests for diagnosing GWI and of associations between biological measures and GWI for their promise as biomarkers., Main Methods: We searched multiple sources through February 2020 for studies of diagnostic tests of GWI and of associations between biological measures and GWI. We abstracted data on study design, demographics, and outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies., Key Findings: We did not identify any studies validating tests of biomarkers that distinguish cases of GWI from non-cases. We included the best-fitting studies, 32 completed and 24 ongoing or unpublished studies, of associations between GWI and biological measures. The less well-fitting studies (n = 77) were included in a Supplementary Table. Most studies were of the central nervous and immune systems and indicated a significant association of the biological measure with GWI case status. Biological measures were heterogeneous across studies., Significance: Our review indicates that there are no existing validated biological tests to determine GWI case status. Many studies have assessed the potential association between a variety of biological measures and GWI, the majority of which pertain to the immune and central nervous systems. More importantly, while most studies indicated a significant association between biological measures and GWI case status, the biological measures across studies were extremely heterogeneous. Due to the heterogeneity, the focus of the review is to map out what has been examined, rather than synthesize information., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Patients with complex health care needs may suffer adverse outcomes from fragmented and delayed care, reducing well-being and increasing health care costs. Health reform efforts, especially those in primary care, attempt to mitigate risk of adverse outcomes by better targeting resources to those most in need. However, predicting who is susceptible to adverse outcomes, such as unplanned hospitalizations, ED visits, or other potentially avoidable expenditures, can be difficult, and providing intensive levels of resources to all patients is neither wanted nor efficient. Our objective was to understand if primary care teams can predict patient risk better than standard risk scores., Methods: Six primary care practices risk stratified their entire patient population over a 2-year period, and worked to mitigate risk for those at high risk through care management and coordination. Individual patient risk scores created by the practices were collected and compared to a common risk score (Hierarchical Condition Categories) in their ability to predict future expenditures, ED visits, and hospitalizations. Accuracy of predictions, sensitivity, positive predictive values (PPV), and c-statistics were calculated for each risk scoring type. Analyses were stratified by whether the practice used intuition alone, an algorithm alone, or adjudicated an algorithmic risk score., Results: In all, 40,342 patients were risk stratified. Practice scores had 38.6% agreement with HCC scores on identification of high-risk patients. For the 3,381 patients with reliable outcomes data, accuracy was high (0.71-0.88) but sensitivity and PPV were low (0.16-0.40). Practice-created scores had 0.02-0.14 lower sensitivity, specificity and PPV compared to HCC in prediction of outcomes. Practices using adjudication had, on average, .16 higher sensitivity., Conclusions: Practices using simple risk stratification techniques had slightly worse accuracy in predicting common outcomes than HCC, but adjudication improved prediction.

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

Introduction: After the 1990 to 1991 conflict in the Persian Gulf, many Gulf War Veterans began reporting numerous unexplained symptoms including, but not limited to, systemic pain, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, and difficulty with memory/concentration. These symptom clusters are now referred to as Gulf War Illness (GWI). Although the etiology of GWI is still debated, as many as 250,000 former service members have been continually suffering from GWI since 1991, making the need for treatment urgent. A broad variety of treatments have been considered for GWI, but there has not been a broad and comprehensive assessment of what is known and not known about GWI treatment. We conducted a systematic review to catalogue the types of treatments that have been examined for GWI, to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of these interventions, and to identify promising and ongoing areas of future GWI treatment research., Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases, trial registries, and reference lists through September 2019 for randomized controlled trial and nonrandomized controlled trial and cohort studies directly comparing interventions for Veterans with GWI to each other, placebo, or usual care. We abstracted data on study design, demographics, interventions, and outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, quality, and strength of evidence (SOE) using prespecified criteria. We resolved discordant ratings by discussion and consensus., Results: We identified 12 randomized controlled trials, each of which examined a different intervention for GWI. We found moderate SOE that cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise, separately and in combination, were associated with improvements in several GWI symptom domains. There was low SOE of benefit from two mindfulness-based interventions and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Mindfulness-based stress reduction improved pain, cognitive functioning, fatigue, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), whereas mind-body bridging improved fatigue, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and sleep, although pain and other outcomes did not improve. Continuous positive airway pressure improved overall physical health, pain, cognitive functioning, fatigue, mental health, and sleep quality in a small study of Veterans with sleep-disordered breathing and GWI. We found moderate SOE that doxycycline is ineffective for GWI in mycoplasma DNA-positive Veterans and increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo. We also found 33 ongoing, single-arm pilot, or unpublished studies examining a variety of interventions., Conclusion: Cognitive behavioral therapy (moderate SOE), exercise (moderate SOE), and mindfulness-based interventions (low SOE) may be effective in improving several symptom domains in patients with GWI. Doxycycline was ineffective and associated with harms (moderate SOE). Larger, more rigorous studies are needed to confirm the benefits found in completed trials. A wide array of treatments are being assessed in ongoing trials. A sufficient evidence base will need to be developed to guide clinicians about which treatments are most likely to be effective in clinical practice and which treatments should be avoided., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2021. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Adults with dialysis-dependent ESKD experience higher rates of depression than the general population, yet efficacy of depression treatments in this population is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the benefits and harms of depression treatment in adults with ESKD. We searched multiple data sources through June 2020 for English-language, controlled trials that compared interventions for depression in adults with ESKD to another intervention, placebo, or usual care, and reported depression treatment-related outcomes. Observational studies were included for harms. Two investigators independently screened all studies using prespecified criteria. One reviewer abstracted data on study design, interventions, implementation characteristics, and outcomes, and a second reviewer provided confirmation. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and resolved any discords through discussion or a third reviewer. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed and agreed upon by review-team consensus. We qualitatively analyzed the data and present syntheses in text and tables. We included 26 RCTs and three observational studies. SSRIs were the most studied type of drug and the evidence was largely insufficient. We found moderate SOE that long-term, high-dose vitamin D3 is ineffective for reducing depression severity. Cognitive behavioral therapy is more effective than (undefined) psychotherapy and placebo for depression improvement and quality of life (low SOE), and acupressure is more effective than usual care or sham acupressure in reducing depression severity (low SOE). There is limited research evaluating treatment for depression in adults with ESKD, and existing studies may not be generalizable to adults in the United States. Studies suffer from limitations related to methodologic quality or reporting. More research replicating studies of promising interventions in US populations, with larger samples, is needed. Systematic Review registry name and registration number : PROSPERO, CRD42020140227., Competing Interests: All authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

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