Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Low serum vitamin D levels have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes; identifying and treating deficiency may improve outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence about screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults. Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and trial registries through March 12, 2020; bibliographies from retrieved articles, outside experts, and surveillance of the literature through November 30, 2020. Study Selection: Fair- or good-quality, English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) compared with no screening, or treatment with vitamin D (with or without calcium) compared with placebo or no treatment conducted in nonpregnant adults; nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for harms only. Treatment was limited to studies enrolling or analyzing participants with low serum vitamin D levels. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed study quality; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, incident fractures, falls, diabetes, cardiovascular events, cancer, depression, physical functioning, and infection. Results: Forty-six studies (N = 16 205) (77 publications) were included. No studies directly evaluated the health benefits or harms of screening. Among community-dwelling populations, treatment was not significantly associated with mortality (pooled absolute risk difference [ARD], 0.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 1.1%]; 8 RCTs, n = 2006), any fractures (pooled ARD, -0.3% [95% CI, -2.1% to 1.6%]; 6 RCTs, n = 2186), incidence of diabetes (pooled ARD, 0.1% [95% CI, -1.3% to 1.6%]; 5 RCTs, n = 3356), incidence of cardiovascular disease (2 RCTs; hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.35] and 1.09 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.76]), incidence of cancer (2 RCTs; hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.39] and 1.01 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.58], or depression (3 RCTs, various measures reported). The pooled ARD for incidence of participants with 1 or more falls was -4.3% (95% CI, -11.6% to 2.9%; 6 RCTs). The evidence was mixed for the effect of treatment on physical functioning (2 RCTs) and limited for the effect on infection (1 RCT). The incidence of adverse events and kidney stones was similar between treatment and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies evaluated the direct benefits or harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency. Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events. The evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.

Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the effectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched Ovid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening effectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After pilot testing review forms, one review author screened titles and abstracts. Two review authors independently screened the full text of studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Abstracts excluded by a first review author were dually reviewed by a second review author prior to exclusion. One review author independently extracted data, which was checked by a second review author for completeness and accuracy. Two review authors independently rated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies and a modified form designed originally for economic evaluations for modelling studies. We resolved differences by consensus. We synthesized the evidence in narrative and tabular formats. We rated the certainty of evidence for days to outbreak, transmission, cases missed and detected, diagnostic accuracy (i.e. true positives, false positives, true negatives, false negatives) using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications. Two modelling studies reported on effectiveness of universal screening. Twenty studies (17 cohort studies and 3 modelling studies) reported on screening test accuracy. Effectiveness of screening We included two modelling studies. One study suggests that symptom screening at travel hubs, such as airports, may slightly slow but not stop the importation of infected cases (assuming 10 or 100 infected travellers per week reduced the delay in a local outbreak to 8 days or 1 day, respectively). We assessed risk of bias as minor or no concerns, and certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for very serious indirectness. The second modelling study provides very low-certainty evidence that screening of healthcare workers in emergency departments using laboratory tests may reduce transmission to patients and other healthcare workers (assuming a transmission constant of 1.2 new infections per 10,000 people, weekly screening reduced infections by 5.1% within 30 days). The certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for high risk of bias (major concerns) and indirectness. No modelling studies reported on harms of screening. Screening test accuracy All 17 cohort studies compared an index screening strategy to a reference reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. All but one study reported on the accuracy of single point-in-time screening and varied widely in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2, settings, and methods of measurement. We assessed the overall risk of bias as unclear in 16 out of 17 studies, mainly due to limited information on the index test and reference standard. We rated one study as being at high risk of bias due to the inclusion of two separate populations with likely different prevalences. For several screening strategies, the estimates of sensitivity came from small samples. For single point-in-time strategies, for symptom assessment, the sensitivity from 12 cohorts (524 people) ranged from 0.00 to 0.60 (very low-certainty evidence) and the specificity from 12 cohorts (16,165 people) ranged from 0.66 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For screening using direct temperature measurement (3 cohorts, 822 people), international travel history (2 cohorts, 13,080 people), or exposure to known infected people (3 cohorts, 13,205 people) or suspected infected people (2 cohorts, 954 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.00 to 0.23 (very low- to low-certainty evidence) and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). For symptom assessment plus direct temperature measurement (2 cohorts, 779 people), sensitivity ranged from 0.12 to 0.69 (very low-certainty evidence) and specificity from 0.90 to 1.00 (low-certainty evidence). For rapid PCR test (1 cohort, 21 people), sensitivity was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; very low-certainty evidence). One cohort (76 people) reported on repeated screening with symptom assessment and demonstrates a sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.59; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity of 0.62 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies evaluated the accuracy of screening at airports. The main outcomes measured were cases missed or detected by entry or exit screening, or both, at airports. One study suggests very low sensitivity at 0.30 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.53), missing 70% of infected travellers. Another study described an unrealistic scenario to achieve a 90% detection rate, requiring 0% asymptomatic infections. The final study provides very uncertain evidence due to low methodological quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for the effectiveness of screening comes from two mathematical modelling studies and is limited by their assumptions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that screening at travel hubs may slightly slow the importation of infected cases. This review highlights the uncertainty and variation in accuracy of screening strategies. A high proportion of infected individuals may be missed and go on to infect others, and some healthy individuals may be falsely identified as positive, requiring confirmatory testing and potentially leading to the unnecessary isolation of these individuals. Further studies need to evaluate the utility of rapid laboratory tests, combined screening, and repeated screening. More research is also needed on reference standards with greater accuracy than RT-PCR. Given the poor sensitivity of existing approaches, our findings point to the need for greater emphasis on other ways that may prevent transmission such as face coverings, physical distancing, quarantine, and adequate personal protective equipment for frontline workers.

Police Discrimination, Misconduct, and Stigmatization of Female Sex Workers in Kenya: Associations with Delayed and Avoided Health Care Utilization and Lower Consistent Condom Use.

Discrimination and violence against sex workers by police are common in many populations and are associated with negative health outcomes, as well as being per se violations of human rights laws and norms. There is a close and mutually reinforcing nexus between legally actionable rights violations and stigma, and reducing human rights violations against sex workers likely requires both legal and societal interventions that address both. In this paper, we first aim to estimate levels of discrimination, violence, and stigma against women sex workers by police in Kenya. Second, we aim to estimate the association between manifestations of discrimination and stigma, on the one hand, and general health care utilization and consistent condom use, on the other. Using data from a survey of Kenyan sex workers, we document widespread discrimination and stigma. Through regression analyses, participants with the highest levels of all three categories of manifestations of discrimination and stigma reported significant lower consistent condom use. Those with the highest levels of witnessed/heard manifestations were significantly more likely to delay or avoid needed health care, and the highest level of experienced manifestations were associated with a marginally significant increase in delay or avoidance. Our findings document a plethora of violations of human rights obligations under Kenyan and international law.

Stigma in health facilities: why it matters and how we can change it.

Stigma in health facilities undermines diagnosis, treatment, and successful health outcomes. Addressing stigma is fundamental to delivering quality healthcare and achieving optimal health. This correspondence article seeks to assess how developments over the past 5 years have contributed to the state of programmatic knowledge-both approaches and methods-regarding interventions to reduce stigma in health facilities, and explores the potential to concurrently address multiple health condition stigmas. It is supported by findings from a systematic review of published articles indexed in PubMed, Psychinfo and Web of Science, and in the United States Agency for International Development's Development Experience Clearinghouse, which was conducted in February 2018 and restricted to the past 5 years. Forty-two studies met inclusion criteria and provided insight on interventions to reduce HIV, mental illness, or substance abuse stigma. Multiple common approaches to address stigma in health facilities emerged, which were implemented in a variety of ways. The literature search identified key gaps including a dearth of stigma reduction interventions in health facilities that focus on tuberculosis, diabetes, leprosy, or cancer; target multiple cadres of staff or multiple ecological levels; leverage interactive technology; or address stigma experienced by health workers. Preliminary results from ongoing innovative responses to these gaps are also described.The current evidence base of stigma reduction in health facilities provides a solid foundation to develop and implement interventions. However, gaps exist and merit further work. Future investment in health facility stigma reduction should prioritize the involvement of clients living with the stigmatized condition or behavior and health workers living with stigmatized conditions and should address both individual and structural level stigma.

A scoping review of the role of HIV-related stigma and discrimination in noncommunicable disease care.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV are increasingly burdened by noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) as a result of the NCD susceptibility that accompanies increased life expectancy and the rising global prevalence of NCDs. Health systems are being strengthened and programs are being developed to address this burden, often building on HIV care strategies and infrastructure or through integrated care models. HIV remains a stigmatized condition and the role of HIV stigma in the provision of NCD care is not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a scoping literature review of both peer reviewed and grey literature to identify evidence of the role of HIV stigma in the NCD-care continuum (prevention, diagnosis, care seeking, retention in care, and adherence to treatment of NCDs). We searched PsychInfo and Pubmed and conducted additional searches of programmatic reports and conference abstracts. Included studies were published in English within the past decade and examined HIV-related stigma as it relates to NCD-care or to integrated NCD-and HIV-care programs. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest: fear of disclosure, internalized shame and embarrassment, and negative past experiences with or negative perceptions of health care providers negatively influence engagement with NCD care; HIV stigma can adversely affect not only people living with HIV in need of NCD care, but all NCD patients; some NCDs are stigmatized in their own right or because of their association with HIV; integrating NCD and HIV care can both reduce stigma for people living with HIV and a present a barrier to access for NCD care. CONCLUSION: Due to the dearth of available research and the variability in initial findings, further research on the role of HIV stigma in the NCD-care continuum for people living with HIV is necessary. Lessons from the field of HIV-stigma research can serve as a guide for these efforts.