Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance: Hearing loss is common in older adults and associated with adverse health and social outcomes. Objective: To update the evidence review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through January 17, 2020; references; and experts; literature surveillance through October 8, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of accuracy, screening, and interventions for screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of screening test accuracy studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life and function, other health and social outcomes, test accuracy, and harms. Results: Forty-one studies (N = 26386) were included, 18 of which were new since the previous review. One trial enrolling US veterans (n = 2305) assessed the benefits of screening; there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing a minimum clinically important difference in hearing-related function at 1 year (36%-40% in the screened groups vs 36% in the nonscreened group). Thirty-four studies (n = 23228) evaluated test accuracy. For detecting mild hearing loss (>20-25 dB), single-question screening had a pooled sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%) and a pooled specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68%-83%) (10 studies, n = 12637); for detecting moderate hearing loss (>35-40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) and pooled specificity was 74% (95% CI, 59%-85%) (6 studies, n = 8774). In 5 studies (n = 2820) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening to detect moderate hearing loss (>40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 52%-81%) and pooled specificity was 78% (95% CI, 67%-86%). Six trials (n = 853) evaluated amplification vs control in populations with screen-detected or recently detected hearing loss over 6 weeks to 4 months. Five measured hearing-related function via the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; only 3 that enrolled veterans (n = 684) found a significant difference considered to represent a minimal important difference (>18.7 points). Few trials reported on other eligible outcomes, and no studies reported on harms of screening or interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: Several screening tests can adequately detect hearing loss in older adults; no studies reported on the harms of screening or treatment. Evidence showing benefit from hearing aids on hearing-related function among adults with screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss is limited to studies enrolling veterans

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence, Elder Abuse, and Abuse of Vulnerable Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance: Intimate partner violence (IPV), elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults are common and result in adverse health outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening and interventions for IPV, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 4, 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs), studies evaluating test accuracy, and cohort studies with a concurrent control group assessing harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled, primarily because of heterogeneity of populations, interventions, and outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Abuse or neglect, morbidity caused by abuse, test accuracy, and harms. Results: Thirty studies were included (N = 14959). Three RCTs (n = 3759) compared IPV screening with no screening; none found significant improvements in outcomes (eg, IPV or quality of life) over 3 to 18 months and 2 (n = 935) reported no harms of screening. Nine studies assessed tools to detect any past-year or current IPV in women; for past-year IPV (5 studies [n = 6331]), sensitivity of 5 tools ranged from 65% to 87% and specificity ranged from 80% to 95%. The accuracy of 5 tools (4 studies [n = 1795]) for detecting current abuse varied widely; sensitivity ranged from 46% to 94% and specificity ranged from 38% to 95%. Eleven RCTs (n = 6740) evaluated interventions for women with screen-detected IPV. Two enrolling pregnant women (n = 575) found significantly less IPV among women in the intervention group: 1 home visiting intervention (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34 [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.08]) and 1 behavioral counseling intervention for multiple risks (IPV, smoking, depression, tobacco exposure) (SMD, -0.40 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12]). No studies evaluated screening or interventions for elder abuse or abuse of vulnerable adults. One study assessing a screening tool for elder abuse had poor accuracy (sensitivity, 46% and specificity, 73% for detecting physical or verbal abuse). Conclusions and Relevance: Although available screening tools may reasonably identify women experiencing IPV, trials of IPV screening in adult women did not show a reduction in IPV or improvement in quality of life over 3 to 18 months. Limited evidence suggested that home visiting and behavioral counseling interventions that address multiple risk factors may lead to reduced IPV among pregnant or postpartum women. No studies assessed screening or treatment for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable adults

Screening for Eating Disorders in Adolescents and Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

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

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance: Type 2 diabetes is common and is a leading cause of morbidity and disability. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for prediabetes and diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through September 2019; references; and experts; literature surveillance through May 21, 2021. Study Selection: English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when at least 3 similar studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms. Results: The review included 89 publications (N = 68882). Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (25120 participants) found no significant difference between screening and control groups for all-cause or cause-specific mortality at 10 years. For harms (eg, anxiety or worry), the trials reported no significant differences between screening and control groups. For recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, 5 RCTs (5138 participants) were included. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, health outcomes were improved with intensive glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin. For example, for all-cause mortality the relative risk (RR) was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96) over 20 years (10-year posttrial assessment). For overweight persons, intensive glucose control with metformin improved health outcomes at the 10-year follow-up (eg, all-cause mortality: RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.91]), and benefits were maintained longer term. Lifestyle interventions (most involving >360 minutes) for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes were associated with reductions in the incidence of diabetes (23 RCTs; pooled RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.88]). Lifestyle interventions were also associated with improved intermediate outcomes, such as reduced weight, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (pooled weighted mean difference, -1.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.8] and -1.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4], respectively). Metformin was associated with a significant reduction in diabetes incidence (pooled RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83]) and reduction in weight and body mass index. Conclusions and Relevance: Trials of screening for diabetes found no significant mortality benefit but had insufficient data to assess other health outcomes; evidence on harms of screening was limited. For persons with recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, interventions improved health outcomes; for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes, interventions were associated with reduced incidence of diabetes and improvement in other intermediate outcomes

Transitional Care Interventions to Prevent Readmissions for Persons With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

Background: Nearly 25% of patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) are readmitted within 30 days. Purpose: To assess the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of transitional care interventions to reduce readmission and mortality rates for adults hospitalized with HF. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 January 1990 to late October 2013). Study Selection: Two reviewers independently selected randomized, controlled trials published in English reporting a readmission or mortality rate within 6 months of an index hospitalization. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data, and another checked accuracy. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE). Data Synthesis: Forty-seven trials were included. Most enrolled adults with moderate to severe HF and a mean age of 70 years. Few trials reported 30-day readmission rates. At 30 days, a highintensity home-visiting program reduced all-cause readmission and the composite end point (all-cause readmission or death; low SOE). Over 3 to 6 months, home-visiting programs and multidisciplinary heart failure (MDS-HF) clinic interventions reduced all-cause readmission (high SOE). Home-visiting programs reduced HF-specific readmission and the composite end point (moderate SOE). Structured telephone support (STS) interventions reduced HF-specific readmission (high SOE) but not all-cause readmissions (moderate SOE). Home-visiting programs, MDS-HF clinics, and STS interventions produced a mortality benefit. Neither telemonitoring nor primarily educational interventions reduced readmission or mortality rates. Limitations: Few trials reported 30-day readmission rates. Usual care was heterogeneous and sometimes not adequately described. Conclusion: Home-visiting programs and MDS-HF clinics reduced all-cause readmission and mortality; STS reduced HF-specific readmission and mortality. These interventions should receive the greatest consideration by systems or providers seeking to implement transitional care interventions for persons with HF