Recently Published Projects

Objectives: Objective. To assess the comparative benefits and harms across three airway management approaches (bag valve mask [BVM], supraglottic airway [SGA], and endotracheal intubation [ETI]) by emergency medical services in the prehospital setting and how the benefits and harms differ based on patient characteristics, techniques, and devices. Data sources. We searched electronic citation databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus®) from 1990 to September 2020, reference lists, and posted a Federal Register notice request for data. Review methods. Review methods followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program Methods guidance. Using pre-established criteria, studies were selected, dual reviewed, data abstracted, and evaluated for risk of bias. Meta-analyses using profile-likelihood random effects models were conducted when data were available from studies reporting on similar outcomes, with analyses stratified by study design, emergency type, and age. We qualitatively synthesized results when meta-analysis was not indicated. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed for primary outcomes (survival, neurological function, return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], and successful advanced airway insertion [for SGA and ETI only]). Results. We included 99 studies (22 randomized controlled trials and 77 observational studies) involving 630,397 patients. Overall, we found few differences in primary outcomes when airway management approaches were compared. • For survival, there was moderate SOE for findings of no difference for BVM versus ETI in adult and mixed-age cardiac arrest patients. There was low SOE for no difference in these patients for BVM versus SGA and SGA versus ETI. There was low SOE for all three comparisons in pediatric cardiac arrest patients, and in adult trauma patients when BVM was compared with ETI. • For neurological function, there was moderate SOE for no difference for BVM compared with ETI in adults with cardiac arrest. There was low SOE for no difference in pediatric cardiac arrest for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI. In adults with cardiac arrest, neurological function was better for BVM and ETI compared with SGA (both low SOE). • ROSC was only applicable in cardiac arrest. For adults, there was low SOE that ROSC was more frequent with SGA compared with ETI, and no difference for BVM versus SGA or BVM versus ETI. In pediatric patients there was also low SOE of no difference for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI. • For successful advanced airway insertion, low SOE supported better first-pass success with SGA in adult and pediatric cardiac arrest patients and adult patients in studies that mixed emergency types. Low SOE also supported no difference for first-pass success in adult medical patients. For overall success, there was moderate SOE of no difference for adults with cardiac arrest, medical, and mixed emergency types. • While harms were not always measured or reported, moderate SOE supported all available findings. There were no differences in harms for BVM versus SGA or ETI. When SGA was compared with ETI, there were no differences for aspiration, oral/airway trauma, and regurgitation; multiple insertion attempts was better for SGA, and inadequate ventilation was better for ETI. Conclusions. The most common findings, across emergency types and age groups, was of no differences in primary outcomes when prehospital airway management approaches were compared. As most of the included studies were observational, these findings may reflect study design and methodological limitations. Due to the dynamic nature of the prehospital environment, the results are susceptible to indication and survival biases as well as confounding; however, the current evidence does not favor more invasive airway approaches. No conclusion was supported by high SOE for any comparison and patient group. This supports the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials designed to account for the variability and dynamic nature of prehospital airway management to advance and inform clinical practice, emergency medical services education and policy, and improve patient-centered outcomes.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of opioid, nonopioid pharmacologic, and nonpharmacologic therapy in patients with specific types of acute pain, including effects on pain, function, quality of life, adverse events, and long-term use of opioids.

Objectives: Background: A 2014 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found antiviral therapy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with improved intermediate outcomes, although evidence on clinical outcomes was limited. Purpose: To update the 2014 HBV screening review in nonpregnant adolescents and adults to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: We utilized the 2014 review, searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Ovid MEDLINE (2014 to August 2019); with surveillance through July 24, 2020. Study Selection: Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the benefits and harms of screening versus no screening, and the yield of alternative screening strategies; RCTs on the effects of antiviral therapy versus placebo or no therapy and preferred versus nonpreferred therapies on intermediate outcomes, clinical outcomes, and harms; and cohort studies on clinical outcomes and on the association between intermediate outcomes following antiviral therapy and clinical outcomes. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Data Synthesis (Results): Fifty total studies (30 trials and 20 cohort studies) with a total of 94,168 participants were included; of these, 22 were added for this update. No study directly evaluated the effects of screening for HBV infection versus no screening on clinical outcomes, such as mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, or cirrhosis. Screening strategies that focused on risk factors such as ever having immigrated from high prevalence countries plus demographic and behavioral risk factors would identify nearly all HBV infection cases. In one study (N=21,008), only screening immigrants from high HBV prevalence countries would miss approximately two-thirds of infected persons. Based on 18 trials (N=2,972), antiviral therapy was associated with greater likelihood than placebo or no treatment for achieving intermediate outcomes, such as virologic suppression and hepatitis B e antigen or hepatitis B surface antigen loss or seroconversion; the numbers needed to treat ranged from 2.6 for virological suppression to 17 for hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion. Based on 12 trials (N=4,127), preferred (first-line) antiviral therapies were at least as likely as nonpreferred therapies to achieve intermediate outcomes. Based on 16 trials (N=4,809), antiviral therapy might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, but data were sparse and imprecise. Nine cohort studies (N=3,893) indicated an association between achieving an intermediate outcome following antiviral therapy and improved clinical outcomes, but were heterogeneous (hazards ratios ranged from 0.07 to 0.87). Antiviral therapy was associated with higher risk of withdrawal due to adverse events versus placebo or no antiviral therapy. Limitations: Only English-language articles were included, clinical outcome data for antiviral therapies were limited, observational studies were included on effects of antiviral therapy on long-term clinical outcomes and the association between intermediate and clinical outcomes, and some studies were conducted in countries where the prevalence and natural history of HBV infection are different from the United States. Conclusions: There was no direct evidence for the clinical benefits and harms of HBV screening versus no screening. Antiviral therapy for HBV infection was associated with improved intermediate outcomes and may improve clinical outcomes. Research is needed to clarify effects of screening and subsequent interventions on clinical outcomes and to identify optimal screening strategies.

Objectives: Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies for the acute treatment of episodic migraine in adults. Data source. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Registrar of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Scopus and various grey literature sources from database inception to April 24, 2020. Comparative effectiveness evidence about triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were extracted from existing systematic reviews. Review methods. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies that enrolled adults who received an intervention to acutely treat episodic migraine. Pairs of independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Results. Data on triptans were derived from 186 RCTs summarized in 9 systematic reviews (101,276 patients, most studied was sumatriptan, followed by zolmitriptan, eletriptan, naratriptan, almotriptan, rizatriptan, and frovatriptan). Compared with placebo, triptans resolved pain at 2 hours and 1 day, and increased the risk of mild and transient adverse events (high strength of the body of evidence [SOE]). Data on NSAIDs were derived from 5 systematic reviews (13,214 patients, most studied was ibuprofen, followed by diclofenac and ketorolac). Compared with placebo, NSAIDs probably resolved pain at 2 hours and 1 day, and increased the risk of mild and transient adverse events (moderate SOE). For other interventions, we included 135 RCTs and 6 comparative observational studies (37,653patients). Compared with placebo, antiemetics (low SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE) and acetaminophen (moderate SOE) reduced acute pain. Opioids were evaluated in 15 studies (2,208 patients). Tramadol in combination with acetaminophen, butorphanol, meperidine, morphine and hydromorphone may reduce pain at 2 hours and 1 day, compared with placebo (low SOE). Some opioids may be less effective than some antiemetics or dexamethasone (low SOE). No studies evaluated instruments for predicting risk of opioid misuse, opioid use disorder or overdose, or evaluated risk mitigation strategies to be used when prescribing opioids for the acute treatment of episodic migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists improved headache relief at 2 hours and increased the likelihood of being headache-free at 2 hours, at 1 day, and at 1 week (low to high SOE). Lasmiditan (the first approved 5-HT1F receptor agonist) restored function at 2 hours and resolved pain at 2 hours, 1 day, and 1 week (moderate to high SOE). Sparse and low SOE suggested possible effectiveness of dexamethasone, dipyrone, flunarazine, magnesium sulfate, octreotide, tezampanel, and tonabersat. Compared with placebo, several non-pharmacologic treatments may improve various measures of pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), magnetic stimulation (low SOE), acupuncture (low SOE), chamomile oil (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and eye movement desensitization re-processing (low SOE). However, these interventions, including the noninvasive neuromodulation devices, have only been evaluated by single or very few trials. Conclusions. A number of acute treatments for episodic migraine exist with varying degrees of evidence for effectiveness and harms. Use of triptans, NSAIDs, antiemetics, dihydroergotamine, CGRP antagonists, and lasmiditan is associated with improved pain and function. The evidence base for many other interventions for acute treatment, including opioids, remains limited.

Objectives: Structured Abstract Objectives. To assess the comparative effectiveness and potential harms of cervical ripening in the outpatient setting (vs. inpatient, vs. other outpatient intervention) and of fetal surveillance when a prostaglandin is used for cervical ripening. Data sources. Electronic databases (Ovid® MEDLINE®, Embase®, CINAHL®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) to July 2020; reference lists; and a Federal Register notice. Review methods. Using predefined criteria and dual review, we selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of cervical ripening comparing prostaglandins and mechanical methods in outpatient versus inpatient settings; one outpatient method versus another (including placebo or expectant management); and different methods/protocols for fetal surveillance in cervical ripening using prostaglandins. When data from similar study designs, populations, and outcomes were available, random effects using profile likelihood meta-analyses were conducted. Inconsistency (using I2) and small sample size bias (publication bias, if ≥10 studies) were assessed. Strength of evidence (SOE) was assessed. All review methods followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods guidance. Results. We included 30 RCTs and 10 cohort studies (73% fair quality) involving 9,618 women. The evidence is most applicable to women aged 25 to 30 years with singleton, vertex presentation and low-risk pregnancies. No studies on fetal surveillance were found. The frequency of cesarean delivery (2 RCTs, 4 cohort studies) or suspected neonatal sepsis (2 RCTs) was not significantly different using outpatient versus inpatient dinoprostone for cervical ripening (SOE: low). In comparisons of outpatient versus inpatient single-balloon catheters (3 RCTs, 2 cohort studies), differences between groups on cesarean delivery, birth trauma (e.g., cephalohematoma), and uterine infection were small and not statistically significant (SOE: low), and while shoulder dystocia occurred less frequently in the outpatient group (1 RCT; 3% vs. 11%), the difference was not statistically significant (SOE: low). In comparing outpatient catheters and inpatient dinoprostone (1 double-balloon and 1 single-balloon RCT), the difference between groups for both cesarean delivery and postpartum hemorrhage was small and not statistically significant (SOE: low). Evidence on other outcomes in these comparisons and for misoprostol, double-balloon catheters, and hygroscopic dilators was insufficient to draw conclusions. In head to head comparisons in the outpatient setting, the frequency of cesarean delivery was not significantly different between 2.5 mg and 5 mg dinoprostone gel, or latex and silicone single-balloon catheters (1 RCT each, SOE: low). Differences between prostaglandins and placebo for cervical ripening were small and not significantly different for cesarean delivery (12 RCTs), shoulder dystocia (3 RCTs), or uterine infection (7 RCTs) (SOE: low). These findings did not change according to the specific prostaglandin, route of administration, study quality, or gestational age. Small, nonsignificant differences in the frequency of cesarean delivery (6 RCTs) and uterine infection (3 RCTs) were also found between dinoprostone and either membrane sweeping or expectant management (SOE: low). These findings did not change according to the specific prostaglandin or study quality. Evidence on other comparisons (e.g., single-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone) or other outcomes was insufficient. For all comparisons, there was insufficient evidence on other important outcomes such as perinatal mortality and time from admission to vaginal birth. Limitations of the evidence include the quantity, quality, and sample sizes of trials for specific interventions, particularly rare harm outcomes. Conclusions. In women with low-risk pregnancies, the risk of cesarean delivery and fetal, neonatal, or maternal harms using either dinoprostone or single-balloon catheters was not significantly different for cervical ripening in the outpatient versus inpatient setting, and similar when compared with placebo, expectant management, or membrane sweeping in the outpatient setting. This evidence is low strength, and future studies are needed to confirm these findings.