How Would You Manage HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in This Patient With Medical Comorbidities? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Despite advances in treatment, HIV infection remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality, with more than 30 000 new cases diagnosed in the United States each year. There are several interventions traditionally used to prevent HIV transmission, but these vary in effectiveness and there are challenges to their implementation. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published initial guidance on the use of antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent transmission of HIV infection in persons at risk based on multiple studies that showed it to be highly efficacious in various populations. It was updated in 2021 to reflect new drug options. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also recently updated its recommendations for PrEP, which strongly support its use in persons at risk. Despite its well-established effectiveness, the implementation of PrEP in clinical practice has been variable, especially among populations underserved by the medical system and marginalized by society. Fewer than one third of persons in the United States who are eligible for PrEP currently receive it. Here, 2 physicians experienced in HIV PrEP debate how best to identify patients who might benefit from PrEP, how to decide what regimen to use, and how to monitor therapy.

Would You Screen This Patient for Cognitive Impairment? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Dementia, according to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is defined by a significant decline in 1 or more cognitive domains that interferes with a person's independence in daily activities. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) differs from dementia in that the impairment is not sufficient to interfere with independence. For the purposes of this discussion, cognitive impairment (CI) includes both dementia and MCI. Various screening tests are available for CI. These tests ask patients to perform a series of tasks that assess 1 or more domains of cognitive function or ask a caregiver to report on the patient's abilities. A positive result on a screening test does not equate to a diagnosis of CI; rather, it should lead to additional testing to confirm the diagnosis. On review of the evidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded in 2020 that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for CI in older adults ("I statement"). The USPSTF did clarify that although there is insufficient evidence, there may be important reasons to identify CI. In this article, 2 experts review the available evidence to answer the following questions: What screening tools are available, and how effective are they in identifying patients with CI? What interventions are available for patients found to have CI, to what extent do they improve patient outcomes, and what, if any, negative effects occur? And, would they recommend screening for CI, and why or why not?

How Would You Manage This Patient With Clostridioides difficile Infection? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and the American College of Gastroenterology recently released updated guidelines on management of patients with Clostridioides difficile infection. Although these 2 guidelines generally agree, there are a few important differences in their advice to clinicians. In these rounds, 2 experts, an infectious diseases specialist and a gastroenterologist, discuss antibiotic treatment options for nonsevere disease, the role of fecal microbiota transplantation for fulminant disease, and the use of bezlotoxumab to prevent recurrence in the context of Ms. C, a 48-year-old woman with fulminant C difficile infection.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Recurrent Diverticulitis? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Acute diverticulitis, which refers to inflammation or infection, or both, of a colonic diverticulum, is a common medical condition that may occur repeatedly in some persons. It most often manifests with left-sided abdominal pain, which may be associated with low-grade fever and other gastrointestinal symptoms. Complications may include abscess, fistula formation, perforation, and bowel obstruction. The American College of Physicians recently published practice guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute diverticulitis, the role of colonoscopy after resolution, and interventions to prevent recurrence of this condition. Among the recommendations were the use of abdominal computed tomography (CT) scanning in cases where there was diagnostic uncertainty, initial management of uncomplicated cases in the outpatient setting without antibiotics, referral for colonoscopy after an initial episode if not performed recently, and discussion of elective surgery to prevent recurrent disease in patients with complicated diverticulitis or frequent episodes of uncomplicated disease. Here, 2 gastroenterologists with expertise in acute diverticulitis debate CT scanning for diagnosis, antibiotics for treatment, colonoscopy to screen for underlying malignancy, and elective surgery to prevent recurrent disease.

How Would You Screen This Patient for Colorectal Cancer? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States, with an estimated 52 580 people expected to die in 2022. Most frequently, CRC is diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. However, among persons younger than 50 years, incidence rates have been increasing since the mid-1990s. In 2021, partially because of the rising incidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screening for adults aged 45 to 49 years (Grade B recommendation). Options for CRC screening include stool-based and direct visualization tests. The USPSTF did not recommend a specific screening test; rather, its guidance was to select a test after a discussion with the patient. Here, a primary care physician and a gastroenterologist discuss the recommendation to begin CRC screening at age 45, review options for CRC screening, and discuss how to choose among the available options.

Would You Recommend a Statin to This Patient for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Hypercholesterolemia is a principal modifiable risk factor for the primary prevention of CVD. In addition to lifestyle modification, statins are an important tool to reduce risk for CVD in selected patients. A useful strategy to identify candidates for statins is to estimate the 10-year risk for CVD through the use of a validated risk calculator. Commonly used calculators include the Framingham risk score and the pooled cohort equation. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that statins reduce the risk for CVD in patients without known CVD. Two recent guidelines have proposed an approach to the use of statins in primary prevention of CVD. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines form the basis for this discussion. The guidelines differ on the use of advanced testing to modify the 10-year CVD risk estimate and on the need for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets to establish the efficacy of statins. Advanced testing with coronary artery calcium measurement may be helpful for patients who are potentially eligible for statin therapy but who are uncertain if they wish to take a statin. In this paper, 2 experts, a preventive cardiologist and a general internist, discuss their approach to the use of statins for primary prevention of CVD and how they would apply the guidelines to an individual patient.

How Would You Treat This Patient With Acute and Chronic Pain From Sickle Cell Disease? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Sickle cell disease is prevalent in large numbers of patients in the United States and has a significant global impact. Its complications span numerous organs and lead to reduced life expectancy. Acute and chronic sickle cell pain is a common cause of patient suffering. The American Society of Hematology published updated guidelines on management of acute and chronic pain from sickle cell disease in 2019. Several of the recommendations are conditional and leave specific decisions to the treating physician. These include conditional recommendations about the use of ketamine for acute pain and the initiation and discontinuation of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. Here, 2 hematologists discuss these guidelines and make contrasting recommendations for the management of acute and chronic pain for a patient with sickle cell disease.

Would You Recommend Aspirin to This Patient for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Reducing ASCVD risk through primary prevention strategies has been shown to be effective; however, the role of aspirin in primary prevention remains unclear. The decision to recommend aspirin has been limited by the difficulty clinicians and patients face when trying to balance benefits and harms. In 2016, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force addressed this issue by determining the risk level at which prophylactic aspirin generally becomes more favorable, recommending aspirin above a risk cut point (>10% estimated ASCVD risk). In 2019, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association issued a guideline on the primary prevention of CVD that recommends low-dose aspirin might be considered for the primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults aged 40 to 70 years who are at higher ASCVD risk but not at increased risk for bleeding. Here, 2 experts discuss how to apply this guideline in general and to a patient in particular while answering the following questions: How do you assess ASCVD risk, and what is the role, if any, of the coronary artery calcium score?; At what risk threshold of benefits and harms would you recommend aspirin or not?; and How do you help a patient come to a decision about starting or stopping aspirin therapy?

Should You Recommend Cannabinoids for This Patient With Painful Neuropathy? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Cannabis includes 140 active cannabinoid compounds, the most important of which are tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (CBD). Tetrahydrocannabinol is primarily responsible for the intoxicating effects of cannabis; CBD has potential therapeutic effects, including reduction in chronic pain. Recent legislative changes have resulted in the legal availability of cannabinoids in all 50 states, as well as a marked increase in patients' interest in their use. Despite an abundance of data, albeit of varied quality, clinicians may feel poorly prepared to counsel patients seeking advice on the suitability of CBD products for various indications, particularly chronic neuropathic pain. In 2018, on the basis of a systematic review of the literature, a Canadian Evidence Review Group published a guideline with recommendations for clinicians on prescribing cannabinoids in primary care practice. The overall quality of evidence was low to very low. In a meta-analysis of 15 randomized trials of medical cannabis for treating chronic pain, 39% of patients achieved at least a 30% reduction in pain. The corresponding value for placebo-treated patients was 30%; the number needed to treat was 11. More evidence exists for neuropathic pain than for other types of noncancer pain. Here, a general internist with a focus on addiction medicine and an addiction psychiatrist discuss how they would apply the literature to make recommendations for a patient with painful diabetic neuropathy, including counseling on both potential benefits and harms.

Management Options for an Older Adult With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Dementia: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

About 15% of adults in the United States-37 million persons-have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Chronic kidney disease is divided into 5 groups, ranging from stage 1 to stage 5 CKD, whereas end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is defined as permanent kidney failure. The treatment options for ESKD are kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and conservative management. The options for KRT include hemodialysis (either in-center or at home), peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplant. Conservative management, a multidisciplinary model of care for patients with stage 5 CKD who want to avoid dialysis, is guided by patient values, preferences, and goals, with a focus on quality of life and symptom management. In 2015, the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative recommended that patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 be educated about options for both KRT and conservative management. In 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended that assessment for KRT or conservative management start at least 1 year before the need for therapy. It also recommended that in choosing a management approach, predicted quality of life, predicted life expectancy, patient preferences, and other patient factors be considered, because little difference in outcomes has been found among options. Here, 2 experts-a nephrologist and a general internist-palliative care physician-reflect on the care of a patient with advanced CKD and mild to moderate dementia. They discuss the management options for patients with advanced CKD, the pros and cons of each method, and how to help a patient choose among the options.

Should You Recommend Inhaled Corticosteroids for This Patient With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Approximately 12 million adults in the United States receive a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) each year, and it is the fourth leading cause of death. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease refers to a group of diseases that cause airflow obstruction and a constellation of symptoms, including cough, sputum production, and shortness of breath. The main risk factor for COPD is tobacco smoke, but other environmental exposures also may contribute. The GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) 2020 Report aims to provide a nonbiased review of the current evidence for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. To date, no conclusive evidence exists that any existing medications for COPD modify mortality. The mainstay of treatment for COPD is inhaled bronchodilators, whereas the role of inhaled corticosteroids is less clear. Inhaled corticosteroids have substantial risks, including an increased risk for pneumonia. Here, 2 experts, both pulmonologists, reflect on the care of a woman with severe COPD, a 50-pack-year smoking history, frequent COPD exacerbations, and recurrent pneumonia. They consider the indications for inhaled corticosteroids in COPD, when inhaled corticosteroids should be withdrawn, and what other treatments are available.

Should This Patient Be Screened for Atrial Fibrillation?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia, affecting 2.7 million to 6.1 million persons in the United States. Although some persons with AFib have no symptoms, others do. For those without symptoms, AFib may be detected by 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), single-lead monitors (such as ambulatory blood pressure monitors and pulse oximeters), or consumer devices (such as wearable monitors and smartphones). Pulse palpation and heart auscultation also may detect AFib. In a systematic review, screening with ECG identified more new cases of AFib than no screening. Atrial fibrillation is an important cause of stroke, and without anticoagulant treatment, patients with AFib have approximately a 5-fold increased risk for stroke. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reviewed the benefits and harms of ECG screening for AFib in adults aged 65 years or older and found inadequate evidence that ECG identifies AFib more effectively than usual care. This conclusion is in contrast to guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, which found that active screening for AFib in patients older than 65 years may be useful. Here, 2 cardiologists discuss the risks and benefits of screening for AFib, if and when they would recommend screening, and whether they would recommend anticoagulation for a patient with screen-detected AFib.

To What Target Hemoglobin A1c Level Would You Treat This Patient With Type 2 Diabetes?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

In the United States, 9.4% of all adults-and 25% of those older than 65 years-have diabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness and end-stage renal disease and contributes to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. The management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a common and important activity in primary care internal medicine practice. Measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) provides an estimate of mean blood sugar levels and glycemic control. The optimal HbA1c target level among various persons with T2D is a subject of controversy. Guidelines regarding HbA1c targets have yielded differing recommendations. In 2018, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a guideline on HbA1c targets for nonpregnant adults with T2D. In addition to a recommendation to individualize HbA1c target levels, the ACP proposed a level between 7% and 8% for most patients. The ACP also advised deintensification of therapy for patients who have an HbA1c level lower than 6.5% and avoidance of HbA1c-targeted treatment for patients with a life expectancy of less than 10 years. This guidance contrasts with a recommendation from the American Diabetes Association to aim for HbA1c levels less than 7% for many nonpregnant adults and to consider a target of 6.5% if it can be achieved safely. Here, 2 experts, a diabetologist and a general internist, discuss how to apply the divergent guideline recommendations to a patient with long-standing T2D and a current HbA1c level of 7.8%.

Would You Recommend Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for This Patient?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer type in the United States overall, accounting for 9.5% of new cancer cases and 5% of cancer deaths. The goal of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening is to identify early-stage disease that can be treated successfully. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reviewed evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening and treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. It found that PSA-based screening in men aged 55 to 69 years prevents approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over 13 years per 1000 men screened and 3 cases of metastatic cancer per 1000 men screened, with no reduction in all-cause mortality. No benefit was found for PSA-based screening in men aged 70 years and older. On the basis of its review, the USPSTF concluded that the decision for men aged 55 to 69 years to have PSA-based screening should be an individual one and should include a discussion of the potential benefits and harms. Here, 2 experts-an internist and a urologist-discuss the key points of a shared decision-making conversation about PSA-based prostate cancer screening, the PSA-based screening strategy that optimizes benefit and minimizes harm, and the PSA threshold at which they would recommend further diagnostic testing.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Gout?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Gout is the most common form of inflammatory arthritis. In 2012, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) issued a guideline, which was followed in 2017 by one from the American College of Physicians (ACP). The guidelines agree on treating acute gout with a corticosteroid, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or colchicine and on not initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for most patients after a first gout attack and in those whose attacks are infrequent (<2 per year). However, they differ on treatment of both recurrent gout and problematic gout. The ACR advocates a "treat-to-target" approach, and the ACP did not find enough evidence to support this approach and offered an alternative strategy that bases intensity of ULT on the goal of avoiding recurrent gout attacks ("treat-to-avoid-symptoms") with no monitoring of urate levels. They also disagree on the role of a gout-specific diet. Here, a general internist and a rheumatologist discuss these guidelines; they debate how they would manage an acute attack of gout, if and when to initiate ULT, and the goals for ULT. Lastly, they offer specific advice for a patient who is uncertain about whether to begin this therapy.

Should This Woman With Dense Breasts Receive Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Breast cancer will develop in 12% of women during their lifetime and is the second leading cause of cancer death among U.S. women. Mammography is the most commonly used tool to screen for breast cancer. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the age at which to begin screening and the optimal screening interval. Breast density is a risk factor for breast cancer. In addition, for women with dense breasts, small tumors may be missed on mammography and the sensitivity of screening is diminished. At the time of publication, 35 states had passed laws mandating that breast density be reported in the letters that radiologists send to women with their mammogram results. The mandated language may be challenging for patients to understand, and such reporting may increase worry for women who are told that their risk for breast cancer is higher than average on the basis of breast density alone. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Radiology (ACR) have each issued guidelines that address breast cancer screening for women with dense breasts. Both organizations found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against magnetic resonance screening, whereas the ACR advises consideration of ultrasonography for supplemental screening. In this Beyond the Guidelines, 2 experts-a radiologist and a general internist-discuss these controversies. In particular, the discussants review the role of supplemental breast cancer screening, including breast ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging for women with dense breasts. Finally, the experts offer specific advice for a patient who finds her mammography reports confusing.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Osteoporosis?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by reduced bone strength that increases the risk for fracture. Approximately 10 million men and women in the United States have osteoporosis, and more than 2 million osteoporosis-related fractures occur annually. In 2016, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists issued the "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis," and in 2017, the American College of Physicians issued the guideline "Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fracture in Men and Women." Both guidelines agree that patients diagnosed with osteoporosis should be treated with an antiresorptive agent, such as alendronate, that has been shown to reduce hip and vertebral fractures. However, there is no consensus on how long patients with osteoporosis should be treated and whether bone density should be monitored during and after the treatment period. In this Beyond the Guidelines, 2 experts discuss management of osteoporosis in general and for a specific patient, the role of bone density monitoring during and after a 5-year course of alendronate, and treatment recommendations for a patient whose bone density decreases during or after a 5-year course of alendronate.

Should This Patient Receive Hormone Therapy for Her Menopausal Symptoms?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Hormone therapy (HT) was widely prescribed in the 1980s and 1990s and has been controversial since the initial results of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial in the early 2000s suggested that it increased risk for breast cancer and coronary heart disease and did not prolong life. However, more recent data and reexamination of the WHI results suggest that HT is safe and effective for many women when used around the time of menopause. Two experts debate the 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement of The North American Menopause Society, which recommends HT as first-line treatment of vasomotor symptoms, and apply it to the care of Ms. R, a 52-year-old woman with severe hot flashes, sleep disturbance, and irritability.

Should This Patient Receive Aspirin?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Aspirin exerts antiplatelet effects through irreversible inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1, whereas its anticancer effects may be due to inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 and other pathways. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force endorsed aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, aspirin's role in cancer prevention is still emerging, and no groups currently recommend its use for this purpose. To help physicians balance the benefits and harms of aspirin in primary disease prevention, the Task Force issued a guideline titled, "Aspirin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Colorectal Cancer" in 2016. In the evidence review conducted for the guideline, cardiovascular disease mortality and colorectal cancer mortality were significantly reduced among persons taking aspirin. However, there was no difference in nonfatal stroke, cardiovascular disease mortality, or all-cause mortality, nor in total cancer mortality, among those taking aspirin. Aspirin users were found to be at increased risk for major gastrointestinal bleeding. In this Beyond the Guidelines, the guideline is reviewed and 2 experts discuss how they would apply it to a 57-year-old man considering starting aspirin for primary prevention. Our experts review the data on which the guideline is based, discuss how they would balance the benefits and harms of aspirin therapy, and explain how they would incorporate shared decision making into clinical practice.