Screening and Supplementation for Iron Deficiency and Iron Deficiency Anemia During Pregnancy: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Iron deficiency is the leading cause of anemia during pregnancy. According to survey data from 1999 to 2006, overall estimated prevalence of iron deficiency during pregnancy is near 18% and increases across the 3 trimesters of pregnancy (from 6.9% to 14.3% to 28.4%). An estimated 5% of pregnant persons have iron deficiency anemia. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and supplementation for iron deficiency with and without anemia on maternal and infant health outcomes in asymptomatic pregnant persons. Population: Asymptomatic pregnant adolescents and adults. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant persons on maternal and infant health outcomes cannot be determined. The USPSTF also concludes that the current evidence is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of iron supplementation in asymptomatic pregnant persons on maternal and infant health outcomes cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons to prevent adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine supplementation for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons to prevent adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. (I statement).

Interventions for High Body Mass Index in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Approximately 19.7% of children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years in the US have a body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts from 2000. The prevalence of high BMI increases with age and is higher among Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents and children from lower-income families. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the evidence on interventions (behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy) for weight loss or weight management in children and adolescents that can be provided in or referred from a primary care setting. Population: Children and adolescents 6 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that providing or referring children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions has a moderate net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide or refer children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI (≥95th percentile for age and sex) to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions. (B recommendation).

Making Drug Approval Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty: Cumulative Evidence versus Value of Information.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the criticality and complexity of decision making for novel treatment approval and further research. Our study aims to assess potential decision-making methodologies, an evaluation vital for refining future public health crisis responses. METHODS: We compared 4 decision-making approaches to drug approval and research: the Food and Drug Administration's policy decisions, cumulative meta-analysis, a prospective value-of-information (VOI) approach (using information available at the time of decision), and a reference standard (retrospective VOI analysis using information available in hindsight). Possible decisions were to reject, accept, provide emergency use authorization, or allow access to new therapies only in research settings. We used monoclonal antibodies provided to hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a case study, examining the evidence from September 2020 to December 2021 and focusing on each method's capacity to optimize health outcomes and resource allocation. RESULTS: Our findings indicate a notable discrepancy between policy decisions and the reference standard retrospective VOI approach with expected losses up to $269 billion USD, suggesting suboptimal resource use during the wait for emergency use authorization. Relying solely on cumulative meta-analysis for decision making results in the largest expected loss, while the policy approach showed a loss up to $16 billion and the prospective VOI approach presented the least loss (up to $2 billion). CONCLUSION: Our research suggests that incorporating VOI analysis may be particularly useful for research prioritization and treatment implementation decisions during pandemics. While the prospective VOI approach was favored in this case study, further studies should validate the ideal decision-making method across various contexts. This study's findings not only enhance our understanding of decision-making strategies during a health crisis but also provide a potential framework for future pandemic responses. HIGHLIGHTS: This study reviews discrepancies between a reference standard (retrospective VOI, using hindsight information) and 3 conceivable real-time approaches to research-treatment decisions during a pandemic, suggesting suboptimal use of resources.Of all prospective decision-making approaches considered, VOI closely mirrored the reference standard, yielding the least expected value loss across our study timeline.This study illustrates the possible benefit of VOI results and the need for evidence accumulation accompanied by modeling in health technology assessment for emerging therapies.

Interventions to Prevent Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Falls are the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the US. In 2018, 27.5% of community-dwelling adults 65 years or older reported at least 1 fall in the past year and 10.2% reported a fall-related injury. In 2021, an estimated 38 742 deaths resulted from fall-related injuries. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of primary care-relevant interventions to prevent falls and fall-related morbidity and mortality in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older. Population: Community-dwelling adults 65 years or older at increased risk of falls. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that exercise interventions provide a moderate net benefit in preventing falls and fall-related morbidity in older adults at increased risk for falls. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that multifactorial interventions provide a small net benefit in preventing falls and fall-related morbidity in older adults at increased risk for falls. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends exercise interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians individualize the decision to offer multifactorial interventions to prevent falls to community-dwelling adults 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls. Existing evidence indicates that the overall net benefit of routinely offering multifactorial interventions to prevent falls is small. When determining whether this service is appropriate for an individual, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms based on the circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient's values and preferences. (C recommendation).

New USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: A Talk With Task Force Vice Chair Dr John Wong.

In this video article, Dr. John B. Wong, Vice Chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), discusses implications of the new USPSTF recommendation for biennial screening mammography for women 40­74 years old.

Impact of Preexisting Heart Failure on Treatment and Outcomes in Older Patients With Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Background: Older patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) often have comorbid cardiovascular disease; however, the impact of pre-existing heart failure (HF) on the management and outcomes of HL is unknown. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of pre-existing HF in older patients with HL and its impact on treatment and outcomes. Methods: Linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and Medicare data from 1999 to 2016 were used to identify patients 65 years and older with newly diagnosed HL. Pre-existing HF, comorbidities, and cancer treatment were ascertained from billing codes and cause-specific mortality from SEER. The associations between pre-existing HF and cancer treatment were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for comorbidities and cancer treatment were used to estimate the association between pre-existing HF and cause-specific mortality. Results: Among 3,348 patients (mean age 76 ± 7 years, 48.6% women) with newly diagnosed HL, pre-existing HF was present in 437 (13.1%). Pre-existing HF was associated with a lower likelihood of using anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimens (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.60) and a higher likelihood of lymphoma mortality (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.06-1.46) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.96-3.36) in models adjusted for comorbidities. One-year lymphoma mortality cumulative incidence was 37.4% (95% CI: 35.5%-39.5%) with pre-existing HF and 26.3% (95% CI: 25.0%-27.6%) without pre-existing HF. The cardioprotective medications dexrazoxane and liposomal doxorubicin were used in only 4.2% of patients. Conclusions: Pre-existing HF in older patients with newly diagnosed HL is common and associated with higher 1-year mortality. Strategies are needed to improve lymphoma and cardiovascular outcomes in this high-risk population.

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate. Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review. Population: Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Ultra-processed food consumption and mortality among patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study.

Background: Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are emerging as a risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet how post-diagnostic UPF intake may impact CRC prognosis remains unexplored. Methods: Data collected from food frequency questionnaires were used to estimate intakes of total UPFs and UPF subgroups (serving/d) at least 6 months but less than 4 years post-diagnosis among 2498 patients diagnosed with stages I-III CRC within the Nurses' Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-up Study during 1980-2016. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of all-cause, CRC- and cardiovascular disease (CVD)-specific mortality in association with UPF consumption were estimated using an inverse probability weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusted for confounders. Findings: The mean (SD) age of patients at diagnosis was 68.5 (9.4) years. A total of 1661 deaths were documented, including 321 from CRC and 335 from CVD. Compared to those in the lowest quintile (median = 3.6 servings/d), patients in the highest quintile (median = 10 servings/d) of post-diagnostic UPF intake had higher CVD mortality (HR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.13-2.40) but not CRC or all-cause mortality. Among UPF subgroups, higher consumption of fats/condiments/sauces was associated with a higher risk of CVD-specific mortality (highest vs. lowest quintile of intake, HR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.41-2.73), and higher intake of ice cream/sherbet was associated with an increased risk of CRC-specific mortality (highest vs. lowest quintile, HR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.33-2.61). No statistically significant association was found between UPF subgroups and overall mortality. Interpretation: Higher post-diagnostic intake of total UPFs and fats/condiments/sauces in CRC survivors is associated with higher CVD mortality, and higher ice cream/sherbet intake is linked to higher CRC mortality. Funding: US National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Speech and language delays and disorders can pose significant problems for children and their families. Evidence suggests that school-aged children with speech or language delays may be at increased risk of learning and literacy disabilities, including difficulties with reading and writing. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger. Population: Asymptomatic children 5 years or younger whose parents or clinicians do not have specific concerns about their speech, language, hearing, or development. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children who do not present with signs or symptoms or parent/caregiver concerns. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger without signs or symptoms. (I statement).

Landscape analysis of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing metrics for consumer nutrition and health in the food and beverage sector.

Introduction: The private sector plays a critical role in influencing food choices and health outcomes of consumers. Among private sector actors, investors are a powerful yet underutilised stakeholder for driving scalable public health impact. There are systems to facilitate investors' involvement, notably environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, which is well placed to include an assessment of business risks to social well-being. However, nutrition efforts within the ESG agenda (ESG-Nutrition) are nascent. We aimed to critically assess the strength of existing ESG-Nutrition metrics to advance the science of measuring business impacts on consumer nutrition and health. Methods: ESG-Nutrition metrics were extracted from eight ESG frameworks and categorised across four domains: product portfolio healthfulness; product distribution and equity; product marketing and labelling; and nutrition-related governance. The strength of each metric was evaluated and scored 1-3 (best), independently by two researchers, based on six attributes: materiality, objectivity, alignment, activity, resolution and verifiability. The total score (range 6-18) and intercorrelation for each attribute was calculated. Results: Across 529 metrics, most related to product marketing and labelling (n=230, 43.5%), followed by product healthfulness (n=126, 23.8%), nutrition-related governance (n=108, 20.4%) and product distribution and equity (n=65, 12.3%). Across all metrics, average total score was 10.94 (1.58), with average attribute scoring highest for verifiability (mean: 2.36 (SD: 0.57)), objectivity (2.11 (0.61)) and materiality (2.01 (0.68)) and lowest for activity (1.83 (0.74)), alignment (1.37 (0.67)) and resolution (1.26 (0.65)). Most intercorrelations were null, suggesting attributes were measuring distinct characteristics of each metric. Significant heterogeneity across domains and frameworks was also observed. Conclusions: This research identifies a range of nutrition-related metrics used in ESG frameworks with respect to food companies, but with substantial heterogeneity in relevant nutrition domains covered and strength of each metric. Efforts are required to improve the quality of metrics across frameworks, establish standardised reporting and align these with investor priorities.