Preventive service utilization among adults with cystic fibrosis covered by private insurance is comparable to the general population.

BACKGROUND: As the life expectancy of the cystic fibrosis (CF) population is lengthening with modulator therapies, diligent age-appropriate screening and preventive care are increasingly vital for long-term health and wellbeing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis comparing rates of receiving age- and sex-appropriate preventive services by commercially insured adult people with CF (PwCF) and adults without CF from the general population (GP) via the Truven Health MarketScan database (2012-2018). RESULTS: We captured 25,369 adults with CF and 488,534 adults from the GP in the United States. Comparing these groups, we found that 43% versus 39% received an annual preventive visit, 28% versus 28% were screened for chlamydia, 38% versus 37% received pap smears every 3 years (21-29-year-old females), 33% versus 31% received pap smears every 5 years (30-64-year-old females), 55% versus 44% received mammograms, 23% versus 21% received colonoscopies, and 21% versus 20% received dyslipidemia screening (all screening rates expressed per 100 person-years). In age-stratified analysis, 18-27-year-old PwCF had a lower rate of annual preventive visits compared to adults in the same age group of the GP (27% versus 42%). CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a comparable-to-superior rate of preventive service utilization in adults with CF relative to the GP, except in young adulthood from 18-27 years. Our findings establish the importance of meeting the primary care needs of adults with CF and call for development of strategies to improve preventive service delivery to young adults.

The timing of recurrence after endoscopic papillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) offers a safe and effective method for resection of ampullary adenomas. Data regarding the long-term resolution of adenoma following EP are limited. The aim of this study therefore was to examine the timing of recurrence after EP of ampullary adenomas. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study including patients who received EP for ampullary adenomas from 8/2000 to 1/2018. Patients with confirmed complete eradication of adenoma were included in the recurrence analysis with recurrence defined as finding adenomatous histology after 1 negative surveillance endoscopy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated to determine recurrence rates. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients who underwent EP, 136 patients (mean age 61.9, 51.5% female) had adenomatous histology with a mean lesion size of 21.2 mm. A total of 124 (91.2%) achieved complete eradication with a follow-up of 345.8 person-years. Recurrence occurred in 20 (16.1%) patients at a mean of 3.2 (± 3) years (range 0.5-9.75 years) for a recurrence rate of 5.8 (95% CI 3.6-8.8) per 100 person-years. Nine (45%) recurrences occurred after the 1st 2 years of surveillance. Recurrence rate did not differ by baseline pathology [low-grade dysplasia: 5.2 (95% CI 3.0-9.0), high-grade dysplasia: 6.9 (95% CI 2.3-15.5), adenocarcinoma: 7.7 (95% CI 0.9-25.1)]. CONCLUSION: Recurrence remains a significant concern after EP. Given the timing of recurrence, long surveillance periods may be necessary. Larger multicenter studies are needed, however, to determine appropriate surveillance intervals.

Screening for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) can progress to active tuberculosis disease, causing morbidity and mortality. Objective: To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening for and treatment of LTBI in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through December 3, 2021; references; experts; literature surveillance through January 20, 2023. Study Selection: English-language studies of LTBI screening, LTBI treatment, or accuracy of the tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs). Studies of LTBI screening and treatment for public health surveillance or disease management were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when a sufficient number of similar studies were available. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening test accuracy; development of active tuberculosis disease, transmission, quality of life, mortality, and harms. Results: A total of 113 publications were included (112 studies; N = 69 009). No studies directly evaluated the benefits and harms of screening. Pooled estimates for sensitivity of the TST were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87) at the 5-mm induration threshold, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.87) at the 10-mm threshold, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46-0.74) at the 15-mm threshold. Pooled estimates for sensitivity of IGRA tests ranged from 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92). Pooled estimates for specificity of screening tests ranged from 0.95 to 0.99. For treatment of LTBI, a large (n = 27 830), good-quality randomized clinical trial found a relative risk (RR) for progression to active tuberculosis at 5 years of 0.35 (95% CI, 0.24-0.52) for 24 weeks of isoniazid compared with placebo (number needed to treat, 112) and an increase in hepatotoxicity (RR, 4.59 [95% CI, 2.03-10.39]; number needed to harm, 279). A previously published meta-analysis reported that multiple regimens were efficacious compared with placebo or no treatment. Meta-analysis found greater risk for hepatotoxicity with isoniazid than with rifampin (pooled RR, 4.22 [95% CI, 2.21-8.06]; n = 7339). Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly evaluated the benefits and harms of screening for LTBI compared with no screening. TST and IGRAs were moderately sensitive and highly specific. Treatment of LTBI with recommended regimens reduced the risk of progression to active tuberculosis. Isoniazid was associated with higher rates of hepatotoxicity than placebo or rifampin.

Rationale and design of the linking education, produce provision, and community referrals to improve diabetes care (LINK) study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) experiencing food insecurity may have other non-medical, health-related social needs (e.g., transportation, housing instability) that decrease their ability to attain T2D control and impact other health outcomes. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial (pRCT) to test the effect of produce provision, diabetes and culinary skills training and education, and social needs screening, navigation, and resolution, on hemoglobin A1c (A1c) levels in individuals with T2D (A1c ≥7.5%) experiencing food insecurity; a cost-effectiveness evaluation of the interventions that comprise the pRCT; and a process evaluation to understand the contextual factors that impact the uptake, effectiveness, and sustainability of the interventions. SETTING: Ambulatory care clinics (e.g., family medicine, general internal medicine, endocrinology) affiliated with an academic medical center in an urban environment in the Midwest. DESIGN: 2 × 2 factorial design. INTERVENTIONS: Cooking Matters for Diabetes is a 6-week diabetes and culinary education intervention. The Health Impact Ohio Central Ohio Pathways Hub intervention is a community health worker model designed to evaluate and address participants' social needs. All participants will receive referral to the Mid-Ohio Farmacy to provide weekly access to fresh produce. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome of the pRCT is change in A1c at 3 months; secondary outcomes include A1c at 6 months, and diabetes self-efficacy, food insecurity, and diet quality at 3 and 6 months. DISCUSSION: Food insecurity, unmet social needs, diabetes education and self-efficacy are critical issues that must be addressed to improve T2D treatment, care, and health equity. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT05472441.

Serologic Screening for Genital Herpes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

This systematic review to support the 2023 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement on serologic screening for genital herpes summarizes published evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and interventions for genital herpes in asymptomatic sexually active adolescents, adults, and pregnant persons with no clinical history of genital herpes.

Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with adverse health outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults or those with unrecognized OSA symptoms to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries through August 23, 2021; surveillance through September 23, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening or treatment of OSA reporting health outcomes or harms, and systematic reviews of treatment reporting changes in blood pressure and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) scores. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of intervention trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep-related and general health-related quality of life (QOL), and harms. Results: Eighty-six studies were included (N = 11 051). No study directly compared screening with no screening. Screening accuracy of the Multivariable Apnea Prediction score followed by unattended home sleep testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI ≥30 and Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] score >10) measured as the area under the curve in 2 studies (n = 702) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90). Five studies assessing the accuracy of other screening tools were heterogeneous and results were inconsistent. Compared with inactive control, positive airway pressure was associated with a significant improvement in ESS score from baseline (pooled mean difference, -2.33 [95% CI, -2.75 to -1.90]; 47 trials; n = 7024), sleep-related QOL (standardized mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.42]; 17 trials; n = 3083), and general health-related QOL measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) mental health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.95 to 3.44]; 15 trials; n = 2345) and SF-36 physical health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.77]; 13 trials; n = 2031). Use of mandibular advancement devices was also associated with a significantly larger ESS score change compared with controls (pooled mean difference, -1.67 [95% CI, 2.09 to -1.25]; 10 trials; n = 1540). Reporting of other health outcomes was sparse; no included trial found significant benefit associated with treatment on mortality, cardiovascular events, or motor vehicle crashes. In 3 systematic reviews, positive airway pressure was significantly associated with reduced blood pressure; however, the difference was relatively small (2-3 mm Hg). Conclusions and Relevance: The accuracy and clinical utility of OSA screening tools that could be used in primary care settings were uncertain. Positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices reduced ESS score. Trials of positive airway pressure found modest improvement in sleep-related and general health-related QOL but have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Adolescents: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Of youths diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, many develop microvascular complications by young adulthood. Objective: To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 3, 2021; references; experts; literature surveillance through July 22, 2022. Study Selection: English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or type 2 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms. Results: This review included 8 publications (856 participants; mean age, 14 years [range, 10-17 years]). Of those, 6 were from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study. No eligible studies directly evaluated the benefits or harms of screening. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (TODAY; n = 699 adolescents with obesity; mean age, 14 years) comparing metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, and metformin plus lifestyle intervention reported that 2 youths with recently diagnosed diabetes developed kidney impairment (0 vs 1 vs 1, respectively; P > .99) and 11 developed diabetic ketoacidosis (5 vs 3 vs 3, respectively; P = .70). One RCT of 75 adolescents (mean age, 13 years) with obesity with prediabetes compared an intensive lifestyle intervention with standard care and reported that no participants in either group developed diabetes, although follow-up was only 6 months. Regarding harms of interventions, 2 RCTs assessing different comparisons enrolled youths with recently diagnosed diabetes. Major hypoglycemic events were reported by less than 1% of participants. Minor hypoglycemic events were more common among youths treated with metformin plus rosiglitazone than among those treated with metformin or metformin plus lifestyle intervention in TODAY (8.2% vs 4.3% vs 3.4%, P = .05). In 1 study, gastrointestinal adverse events were more commonly reported by those taking metformin than by those taking placebo (abdominal pain: 25% vs 12%; nausea/vomiting: 17% vs 10%; P not reported). Conclusions and Relevance: No eligible studies directly evaluated the benefits or harms of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. For youths with prediabetes or recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, the only eligible trials reported few health outcomes and found no difference between groups, although evidence was limited by substantial imprecision and a duration of follow-up likely insufficient to assess health outcomes.

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

Importance: Two 2013 systematic reviews to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to assess benefits and harms of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in adults. Objective: To update the 2013 reviews on screening for glaucoma, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening, referral, and treatment; and studies of screening test diagnostic accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Results: Eighty-three studies (N = 75 887) were included (30 trials and 53 diagnostic accuracy studies). One RCT (n = 616) found screening of frail elderly persons associated with no difference in vision outcomes vs no screening but with significantly greater falls risk (relative risk [RR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]). No study evaluated referral to an eye health professional. For glaucoma diagnosis, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (providing high-resolution cross-sectional imaging; 15 studies, n = 4242) was associated with sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) and the Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer (for perimetry, or measurement of visual fields; 6 studies, n = 11 244) with sensitivity of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95) and specificity 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-0.92); tonometry (for measurement of intraocular pressure; 13 studies, n = 32 892) had low sensitivity (0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.66]). Medical therapy for ocular hypertension and untreated glaucoma was significantly associated with decreased intraocular pressure and decreased likelihood of glaucoma progression (7 trials, n = 3771; RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.96]; absolute risk difference -4.2%) vs placebo, but 1 trial (n = 461) found no differences in visual acuity, quality of life, or function. Selective laser trabeculoplasty and medical therapy had similar outcomes (4 trials, n = 957). Conclusions and Relevance: This review found limited direct evidence on glaucoma screening, showing no association with benefits. Screening tests can identify persons with glaucoma and treatment was associated with a lower risk of glaucoma progression, but evidence of improvement in visual outcomes, quality of life, and function remains lacking.

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found that effective treatments are available for refractive errors, cataracts, and wet (advanced neovascular) or dry (atrophic) age-related macular degeneration (AMD), but there were no differences between visual screening vs no screening on visual acuity or other outcomes. Objective: To update the 2016 review on screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults, to inform the USPSTF. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to February 2021); surveillance through January 21, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials and controlled observational studies on screening, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (wet AMD), and antioxidant vitamins and minerals (dry AMD); studies on screening diagnostic accuracy. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality. Results: Twenty-five studies (N = 33 586) were included (13 trials, 11 diagnostic accuracy studies, and 1 systematic review [19 trials]). Four trials (n = 4819) found no significant differences between screening vs no screening in visual acuity or other outcomes. Visual acuity tests (3 studies; n = 6493) and screening question (3 studies; n = 5203) were associated with suboptimal diagnostic accuracy. For wet AMD, 4 trials (n = 2086) found VEGF inhibitors significantly associated with greater likelihood of 15 or more letters visual acuity gain (risk ratio [RR], 2.92 [95% CI, 1.20-7.12]; I2 = 76%; absolute risk difference [ARD], 10%) and less than 15 letters visual acuity loss (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.22-1.75]; I2 = 80%; ARD, 27%) vs sham treatment, with no increased risk of serious harms. For dry AMD, a systematic review (19 trials) found antioxidant multivitamins significantly associated with decreased risk of progression to late AMD (3 trials, n = 2445; odds ratio [OR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.90]) and 3 lines or more visual acuity loss (1 trial, n = 1791; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]) vs placebo. Zinc was significantly associated with increased risk of genitourinary events and beta carotene with increased risk of lung cancer in former smokers; other serious harms were infrequent. Conclusions and Relevance: This review found that effective treatments are available for common causes of impaired visual acuity in older adults. However, direct evidence found no significant association between vision screening vs no screening in primary care and improved visual outcomes.

Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires decision aid use for lung cancer screening (LCS) shared decision-making. However, it does not require information about incidental findings, a potential harm of screening. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of incidental findings information in an LCS decision aid on screening intent as well as knowledge and valuing of screening benefits and harms. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted online between July 16, 2020, and August 22, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 55-80 years, eligible for LCS. INTERVENTION: LCS video decision aid including information on incidental findings or a control video decision aid. MAIN MEASURES: Intent to undergo LCS; knowledge regarding the benefit and harms of LCS using six knowledge questions; and valuing of six benefits and harms using rating (1-5 scale, 5 most important) and ranking (ranked 1-6) exercises. KEY RESULTS: Of 427 eligible individuals approached, 348 (83.1%) completed the study (173 intervention, 175 control). Mean age was 64.5 years, 48.6% were male, 73.0% white, 76.3% with less than a college degree, and 64.1% with income < $50,000. There was no difference between the intervention and controls in percentage intending to pursue screening (70/173, 40.5% vs 73/175, 41.7%, diff 1.2%, 95% CI - 9.1 to 11.5%, p = 0.81). Intervention participants had a higher percentage of correct answers for the incidental findings knowledge than controls (164/173, 94.8% vs 129/175, 73.7%, 95% CI - 28.4 to - 13.8%, p < 0.01). Incidental findings had the fifth highest mean importance rating (4.0 ± 1.1) and the third highest mean ranking (3.6 ± 1.5). There was no difference in mean rating or ranking of incidental findings between intervention and control groups (rating 4.0 vs 3.9, diff 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2, 0.3, p = 0.51; ranking 3.6 vs 3.6, diff 0.02, 95% CI - 0.3, 0.3, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Incidental findings information in a LCS decision aid did not affect LCS intent, but it resulted in more informed individuals regarding these findings. In formulating screening preferences, incidental findings were less important than other benefits and harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432753.

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia, increases the risk of stroke. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for AF in adults without prior stroke to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through October 5, 2020; references, experts, and literature surveillance through October 31, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening among asymptomatic persons without known AF or prior stroke; test accuracy studies; RCTs of anticoagulation among persons with AF; systematic reviews; and observational studies reporting harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Detection of undiagnosed AF, test accuracy, mortality, stroke, stroke-related morbidity, and harms. Results: Twenty-six studies (N = 113 784) were included. In 1 RCT (n = 28 768) of twice-daily electrocardiography (ECG) screening for 2 weeks, the likelihood of a composite end point (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for bleeding) was lower in the screened group over 6.9 years (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .045), but that study had numerous limitations. In 4 RCTs (n = 32 491), significantly more AF was detected with intermittent and continuous ECG screening compared with no screening (risk difference range, 1.0%-4.8%). Treatment with warfarin over a mean of 1.5 years in populations with clinical, mostly persistent AF was associated with fewer ischemic strokes (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20-0.51]; 5 RCTs; n = 2415) and lower all-cause mortality (pooled RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.93]) compared with placebo. Treatment with direct oral anticoagulants was also associated with lower incidence of stroke (adjusted odds ratios range, 0.32-0.44) in indirect comparisons with placebo. The pooled RR for major bleeding for warfarin compared with placebo was 1.8 (95% CI, 0.85-3.7; 5 RCTs; n = 2415), and the adjusted odds ratio for major bleeding for direct oral anticoagulants compared with placebo or no treatment ranged from 1.38 to 2.21, but CIs did not exclude a null effect. Conclusions and Relevance: Although screening can detect more cases of unknown AF, evidence regarding effects on health outcomes is limited. Anticoagulation was associated with lower risk of first stroke and mortality but with increased risk of major bleeding, although estimates for this harm are imprecise; no trials assessed benefits and harms of anticoagulation among screen-detected populations.

The STUN (STop UNhealthy) Alcohol Use Now trial: study protocol for an adaptive randomized trial on dissemination and implementation of screening and management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA and is associated with many societal and health problems. Less than a third of people who visit primary care providers in the USA are asked about or ever discuss alcohol use with a health professional. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is an adaptive, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice facilitation and telehealth services on evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use in small-to-medium-sized primary care practices. Study participants will include primary care practices in North Carolina with 10 or fewer providers. All enrolled practices will receive a practice facilitation intervention that includes quality improvement (QI) coaching, electronic health record (EHR) support, training, and expert consultation. After 6 months, practices in the lower 50th percentile (based on performance) will be randomized to continued practice facilitation or provision of telehealth services plus ongoing facilitation for the next 6 months. Practices in the upper 50th percentile after the initial 6 months of intervention will continue to receive practice facilitation alone. The main outcome measures include the number (and %) of patients in the target population who are screened for unhealthy alcohol use, screen positive, and receive brief counseling. Additional measures include the number (and %) of patients who receive pharmacotherapy for AUD or are referred for AUD services. Sample size calculations determined that 35 practices are needed to detect a 10% increase in the main outcome (percent screened for unhealthy alcohol use) over 6 months. DISCUSSION: A successful intervention would significantly reduce morbidity among adults from unhealthy alcohol use by increasing counseling and other treatment opportunities. The study will produce important evidence about the effect of practice facilitation on uptake of evidence-based screening, counseling, and pharmacotherapy for unhealthy alcohol use when delivered on a large scale to small and medium-sized practices. It will also generate scientific knowledge about whether embedded telehealth services can improve the use of evidence-based screening and interventions for practices with slower uptake. The results of this rigorously conducted evaluation are expected to have a positive impact by accelerating the dissemination and implementation of evidence related to unhealthy alcohol use into primary care practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04317989 . Registered on March 23, 2020.

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 = 68 882). Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (25 120 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.

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 = 26 386) 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 = 23 228) 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 = 12 637); 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 Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through May 2019; references; experts; and literature surveillance through November 20, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening with LDCT, accuracy of LDCT, risk prediction models, or treatment for early-stage lung cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled because of heterogeneity of populations and screening protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lung cancer incidence, lung cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, test accuracy, and harms. Results: This review included 223 publications. Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (N = 86 486) evaluated lung cancer screening with LDCT; the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, N = 53 454) and Nederlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek (NELSON, N = 15 792) were the largest RCTs. Participants were more likely to benefit than the US screening-eligible population (eg, based on life expectancy). The NLST found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.96]; number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent 1 lung cancer death, 323 over 6.5 years of follow-up) with 3 rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with chest radiograph for high-risk current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 years. NELSON found a reduction in lung cancer mortality (IRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.90]; NNS to prevent 1 lung cancer death of 130 over 10 years of follow-up) with 4 rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals compared with no screening for high-risk current and former smokers aged 50 to 74 years. Harms of screening included radiation-induced cancer, false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and increases in distress. For every 1000 persons screened in the NLST, false-positive results led to 17 invasive procedures (number needed to harm, 59) and fewer than 1 person having a major complication. Overdiagnosis estimates varied greatly (0%-67% chance that a lung cancer was overdiagnosed). Incidental findings were common, and estimates varied widely (4.4%-40.7% of persons screened). Conclusions and Relevance: Screening high-risk persons with LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality but also causes false-positive results leading to unnecessary tests and invasive procedures, overdiagnosis, incidental findings, increases in distress, and, rarely, radiation-induced cancers. Most studies reviewed did not use current nodule evaluation protocols, which might reduce false-positive results and invasive procedures for false-positive results.

Evaluation of the Benefits and Harms of Lung Cancer Screening With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is updating its 2013 lung cancer screening guidelines, which recommend annual screening for adults aged 55 through 80 years who have a smoking history of at least 30 pack-years and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Objective: To inform the USPSTF guidelines by estimating the benefits and harms associated with various low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Comparative simulation modeling with 4 lung cancer natural history models for individuals from the 1950 and 1960 US birth cohorts who were followed up from aged 45 through 90 years. Exposures: Screening with varying starting ages, stopping ages, and screening frequency. Eligibility criteria based on age, cumulative pack-years, and years since quitting smoking (risk factor-based) or on age and individual lung cancer risk estimation using risk prediction models with varying eligibility thresholds (risk model-based). A total of 1092 LDCT screening strategies were modeled. Full uptake and adherence were assumed for all scenarios. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained (benefits) compared with no screening. Estimated lifetime number of LDCT screenings, false-positive results, biopsies, overdiagnosed cases, and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (harms). Results: Efficient screening programs estimated to yield the most benefits for a given number of screenings were identified. Most of the efficient risk factor-based strategies started screening at aged 50 or 55 years and stopped at aged 80 years. The 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria were not among the efficient strategies for the 1960 US birth cohort. Annual strategies with a minimum criterion of 20 pack-years of smoking were efficient and, compared with the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria, were estimated to increase screening eligibility (20.6%-23.6% vs 14.1% of the population ever eligible), lung cancer deaths averted (469-558 per 100 000 vs 381 per 100 000), and life-years gained (6018-7596 per 100 000 vs 4882 per 100 000). However, these strategies were estimated to result in more false-positive test results (1.9-2.5 per person screened vs 1.9 per person screened with the USPSTF strategy), overdiagnosed lung cancer cases (83-94 per 100 000 vs 69 per 100 000), and radiation-related lung cancer deaths (29.0-42.5 per 100 000 vs 20.6 per 100 000). Risk model-based vs risk factor-based strategies were estimated to be associated with more benefits and fewer radiation-related deaths but more overdiagnosed cases. Conclusions and Relevance: Microsimulation modeling studies suggested that LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with no screening may increase lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained when optimally targeted and implemented. Screening individuals at aged 50 or 55 years through aged 80 years with 20 pack-years or more of smoking exposure was estimated to result in more benefits than the 2013 USPSTF-recommended criteria and less disparity in screening eligibility by sex and race/ethnicity.

Efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy after prior sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is safe and effective for the treatment of achalasia. There is limited data on performance of POEM in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, especially after bariatric surgery. Outcomes in patients with prior sleeve gastrectomy have not been reported. AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with prior bariatric surgery. METHODS: A prospective POEM database was reviewed from 3/2017-5/2020 to identify patients who underwent POEM after prior bariatric surgery. Efficacy was assessed by technical success (defined as the ability to successfully complete the procedure) and clinical success [decrease in Eckardt score (ES) to ≤ 3 post procedure]. Safety was evaluated by recording adverse events. RESULTS: Six patients (50% male, mean age 48 years) with a history of prior bariatric surgery who underwent POEM were included. Three had prior sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and three prior Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Four patients had achalasia subtype II and 2 had type I. Most (4) patients had undergone previous achalasia therapy. Technical success was 100%. Clinical success was achieved in 4 (67%) patients at mean follow-up of 21 mo. In one of the clinical failures, EndoFLIP evaluation demonstrated adequate treatment and candida esophagitis was noted as the likely cause of dysphagia. There were no major adverse events. CONCLUSION: POEM is technically feasible after both RYGB and SG and offers an effective treatment for this rare group of patients where surgical options for achalasia are limited.

Assessment of Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that individuals at high risk for lung cancer consider benefits and harms before pursuing lung cancer screening. Medical centers develop websites for their lung cancer screening programs, but to date little is known about the websites' portrayal of benefits and harms or what next steps they recommend for individuals considering screening. Objective: To assess the presentation of potential benefits and harms and recommended next steps on lung cancer screening program websites. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional content analysis of 162 lung cancer screening program websites of academic medical centers (n = 81) and state-matched community medical centers (n = 81) that were randomly selected from American College of Radiology lung cancer screening-designated centers was conducted. The study was performed from December 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Website presentation of screening-associated benefits and harms was the primary outcome. Benefit was defined as any description related to the potential reduction in lung cancer mortality. Harms were based on the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and included false positives, false negatives, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and incidental findings. The secondary outcome was next steps that are recommended by websites. Results: Overall, the 162 lung cancer screening program websites described the potential benefits more frequently than they described any potential harms (159 [98%] vs 78 [48%], P < .01). False-positive findings were the most frequently reported (72 [44%]) potential harm. Community centers were less likely than academic centers to report any potential harm (32 [40%] vs 46 [57%], P = .03), potential harm from radiation (20 [25%] vs 35 [43%], P = .01), and overdiagnosis (0% vs 11 [14%], P < .01). One hundred nineteen websites (73%) did not explicitly recommend that individuals personally consider the potential benefits and harms of screening; community centers were less likely than academic centers to give this recommendation (15 [19%] vs 28 [35%], P = .02). Most institutions (157 [97%]) listed follow-up steps for screening, but few institutions (35 [22%]) recommended that individuals discuss benefits and harms with a health care professional. Conclusions and Relevance: Information on public-facing websites of US lung cancer screening programs appears to lack balance with respect to portrayal of potential benefits and harms of screening. Important harms, such as overdiagnosis, were commonly ignored in the sites evaluated, and most of the centers did not explicitly guide individuals toward a guideline-recommended, shared decision-making discussion of harms and benefits.

Implementing Evidence-Based Screening and Counseling for Unhealthy Alcohol Use with Epic-Based Electronic Health Record Tools.

BACKGROUND: Multiple national organizations recommend screening and counseling adults for unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: An evidence-based approach to screening and counseling using Epic electronic health record (EHR) tools was implemented in a general medicine clinic. A dissemination package with actionable steps for clinics and systems wishing to implement similar processes was then produced. To evaluate the initial implementation and quality improvement project, run charts were created to track patients screened, patients counseled, and fidelity to protocols, and members of the original project team were interviewed to assess facilitators and barriers. The draft dissemination package was revised after feedback from health system representatives (key informants). RESULTS: More than 9,000 patients (73.9% of those eligible) were screened in 20 months. Sixty-four percent of patients with positive initial screens had documented screening-related assessment; 39.7% (141/355) were offered counseling when indicated. Initial project team members identified EHR tools, clinic leadership, quality improvement culture, a multidisciplinary team, and training for providers and nurses as facilitators; and competing demands, patient population size, and nursing staff/resident turnover as barriers. Six key informants evaluated the dissemination package. Most rated 10 of the 12 sections as very useful; all rated components specific to implementing alcohol screening and counseling as very useful. Ratings for general guidance on implementing evidence-based services in primary care were more mixed. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use can be implemented with EHR tools. A dissemination guide was viewed favorably by key informants and can serve as a guide for other clinics and systems.

Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Child maltreatment, also referred to as child abuse and neglect, can result in lifelong negative consequences. Objective: To update the evidence on interventions provided in or referable from primary care to prevent child maltreatment for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through December 18, 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through July 17, 2018. Study Selection: English-language fair- and good-quality randomized clinical trials that (1) included children with no known exposure to maltreatment and no signs or symptoms of current or past maltreatment, (2) evaluated interventions feasible in a primary care setting or that could result from a referral from primary care, and (3) reported abuse or neglect outcomes or proxies for abuse or neglect (eg, injury with a specificity for abuse, visits to the emergency department, hospitalization). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; a third resolved conflicts when needed. When at least 3 similar trials were available, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Direct measures (including reports to child protective services and removal of the child from the home) or proxy measures of abuse or neglect; behavioral, emotional, mental, or physical well-being; and harms. Results: Twenty-two trials (33 publications) were included (N = 11 132). No significant association was found between interventions and reports to child protective services within 1 year of intervention completion (10.6% vs 11.9%; pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.72-1.23]; 10 trials [n = 2444]) or removal of the child from the home within 1 to 3 years of follow-up (3.5% vs 3.7%; pooled OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.16-7.28]; 4 trials [n = 609]). No statistically significant associations were observed between interventions and outcomes for emergency department visits in the short term (<2 years), hospitalizations, child development, school performance, and prevention of death. Nonsignificant results from single trials led to a conclusion of insufficient evidence for injuries, failure to thrive, failure to immunize, school attendance, and other measures of abuse or neglect. Inconsistent results led to a conclusion of insufficient evidence for long-term (≥2 years) outcomes for reports to child protective services (ORs range from 0.48 to 1.13; 3 trials [n = 1690]), emergency department visits (1 of 2 trials reported significant differences) and internalizing and externalizing behavior symptoms (3 of 6 trials reported reductions in behavior difficulties). No eligible trials on harms of interventions were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Interventions provided in or referable from primary care did not consistently prevent child maltreatment. No evidence on harms is available.