Recently Published Projects

Objectives: Background: In 2006, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children aged 1 to 5 who are at increased risk for lead poisoning (I recommendation), and recommended against routine screening for those at average risk (D recommendation). Purpose: To synthesize evidence on the effects of screening, testing, and treatment for elevated blood lead level in children aged five and under in the primary care setting, in order to update a prior USPSTF review on screening for elevated blood lead levels in childhood. Data Sources: Cochrane CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through June 2018), and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 2018), reference lists, and surveillance through December 5, 2018. Study Selection: English-language trials and observational studies of screening effectiveness, test accuracy, benefits and harms of screening and interventions in asymptomatic children five and under. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted details about study design, patient population, setting, screening method, follow up, and results. Two investigators independently applied pre specified criteria to rate study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data Synthesis (Results): A total of 22 studies were included in this review (N=10,449). No studies directly evaluated clinical benefits or harms of screening versus not screening children for elevated blood lead levels. More than one positive answer on the 5-item 1991 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) screening questionnaire was associated with a pooled sensitivity of 48 percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.4 to 65.6%) and specificity of 58 percent (95% CI, 39.9 to 74.0%) for identifying children with a venous blood level >10µg/dL (5 studies, N = 2,265). Adapted versions of the CDC questionnaire did not demonstrate improved accuracy. Capillary blood lead testing demonstrated sensitivity of 87 percent to 91 percent and specificity >90 percent, compared with venous measurement (4 studies, N = 1,431). Counseling and nutritional interventions or residential lead hazard control techniques did not reduce blood lead concentrations in asymptomatic children, but studies were few and had methodological limitations (7 studies, N = 1,419). A trial of dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) chelation therapy found reduced blood lead levels in children at one week to one year but not at 4.5 to 6 years (N = 780), while another trial found no effect at one- and six-months (N = 39). Seven-year followup assessments showed no effect on neuropsychological development; a small deficit in linear growth (height difference at 7 years in treated patients 1.17cm; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.93); and poorer cognitive outcomes reported as the Attention and Executive Functions sub-score of the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment (NEPSY) (unadjusted difference -1.8; 95% CI, -4.5 to 1.0, adjusted P = 0.045) in children treated with DMSA chelation. Limitations: Limited to English-language articles; quality and applicability of studies were limited due to study design, poor reporting of statistical outcomes, and loss to follow up. Studies were lacking on the effectiveness of screening or effectiveness of treatments in reducing elevated blood lead levels or improving health outcomes in children. There was no direct evidence on the harms of screening children for elevated blood lead levels. Conclusions: Evidence on the benefits and harms of screening children for elevated lead levels is lacking. Screening questionnaires are not accurate for identifying children with elevated blood lead levels. Capillary blood testing is slightly less accurate than venous blood levels for identification of elevated blood levels. Treatment studies of chelating agents, often combined with environmental or household interventions, were not associated with sustained effects on blood level levels but were associated with harms.

Objectives: Structured Abstract Background: In 2006, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic pregnant women (D recommendation). Purpose: To synthesize evidence on the effects of screening, testing, and treatment for elevated blood lead level in pregnant women, in order to update a 2006 USPSTF systematic review. Data Sources: Cochrane CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through June 2018), and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June 2018), reference lists, and surveillance through December 5, 2018. Study Selection: English-language trials and observational studies of screening effectiveness, test accuracy, benefits and harms of screening and interventions in asymptomatic pregnant women. Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted details about study design, patient population, setting, screening method, follow up, and results. Two investigators independently applied prespecified criteria to rate study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data Synthesis: No studies directly evaluated clinical benefits and harms of screening pregnant women for elevated lead levels versus no screening, or how effectiveness of screening varies according to the gestational age at which screening is performed. One fair quality study (N = 314) evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of using a version of the CDC screening questionnaire for lead exposure in children, modified for identifying pregnant women with elevated lead levels. The study used four out of five of the questions from the CDC questionnaire and found a sensitivity of 75.7 percent and specificity of 46.2 percent. The most predictive single item was living in a home built before 1960. One fair quality RCT from Mexico found calcium supplementation in healthy pregnant women (N = 670; mean baseline lead levels ~ 4 µg/dL) associated with a reduction in serum lead levels compared with placebo (difference 11%, p=0.004). No studies reported health outcomes or harms associated with interventions to reduce blood levels in asymptomatic pregnant women. Limitations: Limited to English-language articles; quality and applicability of studies were limited due to flawed study design, poor reporting of statistical outcomes, and loss to follow up. Two studies addressed the key questions, with no evidence on effects of screening or interventions for elevated lead levels in pregnant women on health outcomes. Conclusions: Evidence on the benefits and harms of screening pregnant women for elevated blood lead levels is extremely limited, with no evidence on effects of screening or interventions for lowering elevated blood lead levels in pregnant women on health outcomes.

Objectives:

Objectives: Objective. To assess efficacy of intermittent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy in different populations (0 to 4 years old with recurrent wheezing, 5 years and older with persistent asthma, with or without long-acting beta agonist [LABA]), and to assess efficacy of added long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in patients 12 years and older with uncontrolled, persistent asthma. Data sources. MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews bibliographic databases from earliest date through March 23, 2017; hand searches of references of relevant studies; www.clinicaltrials.gov and the International Controlled Trials Registry Platform. Review methods. Two investigators screened abstracts of identified references for eligibility and subsequently reviewed full-text files. We abstracted data, performed meta-analyses when appropriate, assessed the risk of bias of each individual study, and graded the strength of evidence for each comparison and outcome. Outcomes for which data were extracted included exacerbations, mortality, asthma control composite scores, spirometry, asthma-specific quality of life, and rescue medication use. Results. We included 56 unique studies (54 randomized controlled trials, 2 observational studies) in this review. Compared to rescue short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) use, adding intermittent ICS reduces the risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids and improves caregiver quality of life in children less than 5 years old with recurrent wheezing in the setting of a respiratory tract infection (RTI). In patients 12 years and older with persistent asthma, differences in intermittent ICS versus controller use of ICS were not detected, although few studies provided evidence, leading to primarily low strength of evidence ratings. Using ICS and LABA as both a controller and quick relief therapy reduced the risk of exacerbations and improved symptom control in patients 12 years and older compared to ICS controller (with or without LABA). Data in patients 4 to 11 years old suggest lower risk of exacerbations with ICS and LABA controller and quick relief use, but with a lower strength of evidence than in the older population. In patients 12 years and older with uncontrolled, persistent asthma, LAMA versus placebo as add-on to ICS reduces the risk of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and improves lung function measure through spirometry. Current evidence does not suggest that a difference exists in the efficacy of LAMA versus LABA as add-on to ICS. Triple therapy of ICS, LAMA, and LABA improves lung function measured through spirometry, although the risk of exacerbation was not different versus ICS and LABA. Conclusions. Intermittent ICS added to SABA during an RTI provides benefit to patients less than 5 years of age with recurrent wheezing. In patients 12 years and older with persistent asthma, differences in intermittent ICS versus controller use of ICS were not detected, although few studies provided evidence for this question. In patients 12 years and older with persistent asthma, using ICS and LABA as both a controller and quick relief therapy may be more effective at preventing exacerbations than ICS controller (with or without LABA). LAMA is effective in the management of uncontrolled, persistent asthma in patients 12 years of age and older, and current evidence does not suggest a difference between LAMA and LABA as add-on to ICS.

Objectives: Objective. To assess select adverse events of antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults 65 years old or older. Antidepressants included in this review, as determined by expert opinion, are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), bupropion, mirtazapine, trazodone, vilazodone and vortioxetine. Data sources. MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Central, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases from earliest date through May 15, 2018; hand searches of references of relevant studies; www.clinicaltrials.gov and the International Controlled Trials Registry Platform. Review methods. Two investigators screened abstracts and subsequently reviewed full-text files. We abstracted data, performed meta-analyses when appropriate, assessed the risk of bias of each individual study, and graded the strength of evidence (SOE) for each comparison and select outcomes. Number needed to harm (NNH) is reported for graded outcomes with statistically significant findings. Results. Nineteen RCTs and two observational studies reported in 41 articles were included. Studies mostly evaluated treatment of the acute phase (<12 weeks) of MDD which was of moderate severity in patients 65 years and older, required subjects to be free from uncontrolled medical comorbidities or psychological conditions, and relied on spontaneous reporting of adverse events. Evidence was scarce and conclusions (based on statistical significance) for a given comparison and outcome are based often on a single study; particularly for specific adverse events. None of the RCTs were powered or designed to capture adverse events and most RCTs studied low doses of antidepressants. Observational data were limited by residual confounding. SSRIs (escitalopram and fluoxetine, moderate SOE), vortioxetine (high SOE) and bupropion XR (moderate SOE) led to a statistically similar frequency of adverse events compared with placebo; whereas SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine) were found to cause a greater number of adverse events (high SOE, NNH 10) compared with placebo during treatment of the acute phase of MDD. Both SSRIs (citalopram, escitalopram and fluoxetine) and SNRIs caused a greater number of withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo (SSRIs low SOE, NNH 11; SNRIs moderate SOE, NNH 17). Duloxetine led to a greater number of falls compared with placebo (moderate SOE, NNH 10) during 24 weeks treatment. A single observational study provided evidence on long term use of antidepressants (low SOE) and suggested increased risk of adverse events (SSRIs), falls (SSRIs, SNRI venlafaxine, mirtazapine, trazadone), fractures (SSRIs, SNRI venlafaxine, mirtazapine), and mortality (SSRIs, SNRI venlafaxine, mirtazapine, trazadone), compared to no antidepressant. Evidence for the comparative harms of different antidepressants was limited to single RCTs mostly studying treatment of the acute phase of MDD (<12 weeks). Comparing SSRIs to each other or SSRIs to SNRIs showed statistically similar rates of adverse events (moderate SOE). SSRIs (paroxetine, citalopram, sertraline) had fewer withdrawals due to adverse events compared with TCAs (amitriptyline or nortriptyline) (low SOE, NNT 13) as did mirtazapine compared with paroxetine (low SOE, NNT 9). Vortioxetine had fewer adverse events compared with duloxetine (high SOE, NNT 6 ). Increasing age was associated with greater incidence of serious adverse events with escitalopram (low SOE). The increased risk of falls on duloxetine may be associated with the presence of cardiopulmonary conditions (low SOE). Conclusions. In patients 65 years of age or older with MDD, treatment of the acute phase of MDD with SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine) led to a greater number of adverse events compared with placebo while adverse events were statistically similar to placebo with SSRIs (escitalopram, fluoxetine), vortioxetine and bupropion. SSRIs (citalopram, escitalopram and fluoxetine) and SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine) led to a greater number of study withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo and duloxetine increased the risk of falls. Further characterization of the comparative safety of antidepressants is difficult because few studies were identified, comparisons were based on statistical significance, trials were not powered to identify small difference in adverse events and observational studies may be confounded. Comparative, long-term, well-designed studies that report specific adverse events are needed to better inform decisionmaking in this population.