Screening for harmful substance use in emergency departments: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Substance use-related emergency department (ED) visits have increased substantially in North America. Screening for substance use in EDs is recommended; best approaches are unclear. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on diagnostic accuracy of ED screening tools to detect harmful substance use. METHODS: We included derivation or validation studies, with or without comparator, that included adult (≥ 18 years) ED patients and evaluated screening tools to identify general or specific substance use disorders or harmful use. Our search strategy combined concepts Emergency Department AND Screening AND Substance Use. Trained reviewers assessed title/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. Reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary investigators adjudicated if necessary. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. We descriptively summarized results. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 2696 studies; we included 33. Twenty-one (64%) evaluated a North American population. Fourteen (42%) applied screening among general ED patients. Screening tools were administered by research staff (n = 21), self-administered by patients (n = 10), or non-research healthcare providers (n = 1). Most studies evaluated alcohol use screens (n = 26), most commonly the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; n = 14), Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye-opener (CAGE; n = 13), and Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS/RAPS4/RAPS4-QF; n = 12). Four studies assessing six tools and screening thresholds for alcohol abuse/dependence in North American patients (AUDIT ≥ 8; CAGE ≥ 2; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition [DSM-IV-2] ≥ 1; RAPS ≥ 1; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA]; Tolerance/Worry/Eye-opener/Amnesia/K-Cut down [TWEAK] ≥ 3) reported both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83%. Two studies evaluating a single alcohol screening question (SASQ) (When was the last time you had more than X drinks in 1 day?, X = 4 for women; X = 5 for men) reported sensitivities 82-85% and specificities 70-77%. Five evaluated screening tools for general substance abuse/dependence (Relax/Alone/Friends/Family/Trouble [RAFFT] ≥ 3, Drug Abuse Screening Test [DAST] ≥ 4, single drug screening question, Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] ≥ 42/18), reporting sensitivities 64%-90% and specificities 61%-100%. Studies' risk of bias were mostly high or uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Six screening tools demonstrated both sensitivities and specificities ≥ 83% for detecting alcohol abuse/dependence in EDs. Tools with the highest sensitivities (AUDIT ≥ 8; RAPS ≥ 1) and that prioritize simplicity and efficiency (SASQ) should be prioritized.

High-normal versus low-normal mean arterial pressure thresholds in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Targeted blood pressure thresholds remain unclear in critically ill patients. Two prior systematic reviews have not shown differences in mortality with a high mean arterial pressure (MAP) threshold, but there have been new studies published since. Thus, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of a high-normal vs low-normal MAP on mortality, favourable neurologic outcome, need for renal replacement therapy, and adverse vasopressor-induced events in critically ill patients. SOURCE: We searched six databases from inception until 1 October 2022 for RCTs of critically ill patients targeted to either a high-normal vs a low-normal MAP threshold for at least 24 hr. We assessed study quality using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool and the risk ratio (RR) was used as the summary measure of association. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We included eight RCTs with 4,561 patients. Four trials were conducted in patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, two in patients with distributive shock requiring vasopressors, one in patients with septic shock, and one in patients with hepatorenal syndrome. The pooled RRs for mortality (eight RCTs; 4,439 patients) and favourable neurologic outcome (four RCTs; 1,065 patients) were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.14; moderate certainty) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.08; moderate certainty), respectively. The RR for the need for renal replacement therapy (four RCTs; 4,071 patients) was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.08; moderate certainty). There was no statistical between-study heterogeneity across all outcomes. CONCLUSION: This updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs found no differences in mortality, favourable neurologic outcome, or the need for renal replacement therapy between critically ill patients assigned to a high-normal vs low-normal MAP target. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022307601); registered 28 February 2022.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les seuils de pression artérielle ciblés demeurent incertains chez les patient·es gravement malades. Deux revues systématiques antérieures n'ont pas montré de différences dans la mortalité avec un seuil élevé de pression artérielle moyenne (PAM), mais de nouvelles études ont été publiées depuis. Pour cette raison, nous avons réalisé une revue systématique mise à jour et une méta-analyse d'études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant l'effet d'une PAM normale élevée vs normale faible sur la mortalité, les devenirs neurologiques favorables, la nécessité d'un traitement substitutif de l'insuffisance rénale et les événements indésirables induits par les vasopresseurs chez les patient·es gravement malades. SOURCES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans six bases de données depuis leur création jusqu'au 1er octobre 2022 pour trouver des ERC portant sur des patient·es gravement malades chez lesquel·les un seuil de PAM normale élevée ou normale faible a été ciblé pendant au moins 24 heures. Nous avons évalué la qualité des études à l'aide de l'outil de risque de biais 2 révisé de Cochrane, et le risque relatif (RR) a été utilisé comme mesure sommaire de l'association. Nous avons utilisé le système de notation GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) pour évaluer la certitude des données probantes. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nous avons inclus huit ERC portant sur 4561 personnes traitées. Quatre études ont été menées chez des patient·es à la suite d'un arrêt cardiaque hors de l'hôpital, deux chez des patient·es présentant un choc distributif nécessitant des vasopresseurs, une chez des patient·es présentant un choc septique et une chez des patient·es atteint·es d'un syndrome hépato-rénal. Les RR combinés pour la mortalité (huit ERC; 4439 personnes) et les devenirs neurologiques favorables (quatre ERC; 1065 personnes) étaient respectivement de 1,06 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,99 à 1,14; certitude modérée) et de 0,99 (IC 95 %, 0,90 à 1,08; certitude modérée). Le RR pour le besoin de traitement substitutif de l'insuffisance rénale (quatre ERC; 4071 patient·es) était de 0,97 (IC 95 %, 0,87 à 1,08; certitude modérée). Il n'y avait pas d'hétérogénéité statistique entre les études pour tous les critères d'évaluation. CONCLUSION: Ces revue systématique et méta-analyse mises à jour des ERC n'ont révélé aucune différence dans la mortalité, les devenirs neurologiques favorables ou la nécessité d'un traitement substitutif de l'insuffisance rénale entre les patient·es gravement malades assigné·es à une cible de PAM normale élevée vs normale faible. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42022307601); enregistrée le 28 février 2022.

Short communication: Systematic review on effectiveness of micro-induction approaches to buprenorphine initiation.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Micro-induction is a novel buprenorphine induction approach that seeks to avoid withdrawal and minimize precipitated withdrawal, both barriers to standard inductions. We aimed to synthesize evidence on micro-induction effectiveness, and regimens described. METHODS: We searched scientific databases and grey literature for studies including adolescents or adults with opioid use disorder who received buprenorphine micro-induction. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessments occurred in duplicate. We narratively synthesized results. RESULTS: We screened 4,752 citations and included 19 case studies/series and one feasibility study (n = 57 patients; mean age 38 years [SD 12.0]; 57.9% male [33/57]). Studies described 26 regimens; starting and maintenance doses ranged from 0.03 to 1.0 mg, and 8 to 32 mg, respectively. We calculated rate of increase to 8 mg. All patients achieved the desired maintenance dose. Among 54 patients in whom precipitated withdrawal was not reported, mean increases were 1.36 mg/day (SD 0.41). For three patients in whom precipitated withdrawal was specifically reported, mean increase was 1.17 mg/day (SD 0.11). All studies were low quality. DISCUSSION: Described regimens are highly variable. Inconsistent reporting, selection bias, and poor quality evidence limit conclusions regarding optimal dosing, and patient characteristics and clinical settings in which micro-induction is likely beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides the most up-to-date synthesis on buprenorphine micro-induction regimens. Rigorous studies evaluating effectiveness and safety of micro-induction, and patient and clinical factors influencing its success, are needed.

Treatment of stimulant use disorder: A systematic review of reviews.

AIMS: Stimulant use disorder contributes to a substantial worldwide burden of disease, although evidence-based treatment options are limited. This systematic review of reviews aims to: (i) synthesize the available evidence on both psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder; (ii) identify the most effective therapies to guide clinical practice, and (iii) highlight gaps for future study. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible studies were those that followed standard systematic review methodology and assessed randomized controlled trials focused on the efficacy of interventions for stimulant use disorder. Articles were critically appraised using an assessment tool adapted from Palmeteer et al. and categorized for quality as 'core' or 'supplementary' reviews. Evidence from the included reviews were further synthesized according to pharmacological or non-pharmacological management themes. RESULTS: Of 476 identified records, 29 systematic reviews examining eleven intervention modalities were included. The interventions identified include: contingency management, cognitive behavioural therapy, acupuncture, antidepressants, dopamine agonists, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, disulfiram, opioid agonists, N-Acetylcysteine, and psychostimulants. There was sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of contingency management programs for treatment of stimulant use disorder. Psychostimulants, n-acetylcysteine, opioid agonist therapy, disulfiram and antidepressant pharmacological interventions were found to have insufficient evidence to support or discount their use. Results of this review do not support the use of all other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review supports the use of contingency management interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder. Although evidence to date is insufficient to support the clinical use of psychostimulants, our results demonstrate potential for future research in this area. Given the urgent need for effective pharmacological treatments for stimulant use disorder, high-quality primary research focused on the role of psychostimulant medications for the treatment of stimulant use disorder is needed.

Adherence to a pediatric diabetic ketoacidosis protocol in children presenting to a tertiary care hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To review adherence to a provincial diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) protocol and to assess factors associated with intravenous fluid administration and the length time on an insulin infusion. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all DKA admissions to British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH) during September 2008 to December 2013. Data collection included diabetes history, estimation of dehydration, insulin and fluid infusion rates, and frequency of laboratory investigations. Markers of adherence included appropriate use of a fluid bolus, normal saline and insulin infusion time, fluid intake and outputs, and the frequency of blood work during the insulin infusion. A log-linear regression model was fitted to assess the factors associated with insulin infusion duration. RESULTS: Of 157 children (median [interquartile range] age: 10.6 years [5.0, 13.8]) hospitalized for DKA, 45% (n = 70) were male, 55% (n = 86) were transferred from other hospitals, and 26% (n = 40) were admitted to intensive care unit. Thirty-five percent of subjects estimated to have mild or moderate dehydration received fluid boluses. In the adjusted analysis, the average duration on DKA protocol was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12%, 67%) longer for children admitted with severe dehydration (compared to those with mild dehydration). CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers' adherence to the BCCH DKA protocol is poor. More severe dehydration at presentation is associated with longer duration of insulin infusion. Further knowledge translation initiatives focused on accurate estimation of volume depletion to ensure appropriate initial fluid resuscitation-as well as careful monitoring during DKA hospitalization-are important, especially in community centers.