Management of Chronic Insomnia Disorder in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the management of chronic insomnia disorder in adults. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials published in English from 2004 through September 2015. Evaluated outcomes included global outcomes assessed by questionnaires, patient-reported sleep outcomes, and harms. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes adults with chronic insomnia disorder. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations by using the ACP grading system, which is based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that all adult patients receive cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as the initial treatment for chronic insomnia disorder. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use a shared decision-making approach, including a discussion of the benefits, harms, and costs of short-term use of medications, to decide whether to add pharmacological therapy in adults with chronic insomnia disorder in whom cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) alone was unsuccessful. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).

Improving Adherence to Therapy and Clinical Outcomes While Containing Costs: Opportunities From the Greater Use of Generic Medications: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The discrepancy between health care spending and achieved outcomes in the United States has fueled efforts to identify and address situations where unnecessarily expensive therapies are used when less costly, equally effective options are available. The underuse of generic medications is an important example. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to answer 5 questions about generic medications: 1) How commonly are brand-name medications used when a generic version is available? 2) How does the use of generic medications influence adherence? 3) What is the evidence that brand-name and generic medications have similar clinical effects? 4) What are the barriers to increasing the use of generic medications? 5) What strategies can be used to promote cost savings through greater generic medication use? This article was reviewed and approved by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE: Clinicians should prescribe generic medications, if possible, rather than more expensive brand-name medications.

Cervical Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Women: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this best practice advice article is to describe the indications for screening for cervical cancer in asymptomatic, average-risk women aged 21 years or older. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is a distillation of relevant publications (including systematic reviews) used to support current guidelines. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should not screen average-risk women younger than 21 years for cervical cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should start screening average-risk women for cervical cancer at age 21 years once every 3 years with cytology (cytologic tests without human papillomavirus [HPV] tests). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should not screen average-risk women for cervical cancer with cytology more often than once every 3 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians may use a combination of cytology and HPV testing once every 5 years in average-risk women aged 30 years or older who prefer screening less often than every 3 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not perform HPV testing in average-risk women younger than 30 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Clinicians should stop screening average-risk women older than 65 years for cervical cancer if they have had 3 consecutive negative cytology results or 2 consecutive negative cytology plus HPV test results within 10 years, with the most recent test performed within 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Clinicians should not screen average-risk women of any age for cervical cancer if they have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix.

Treatment of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of treatments of pressure ulcers. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Health Technology Assessment database through February 2014. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include complete wound healing, wound size (surface area, volume, and depth) reduction, pain, prevention of sepsis, prevention of osteomyelitis, recurrence rate, and harms of treatment (including but not limited to pain, dermatologic complications, bleeding, and infection). This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients with pressure ulcers. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that clinicians use protein or amino acid supplementation in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians use hydrocolloid or foam dressings in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends that clinicians use electrical stimulation as adjunctive therapy in patients with pressure ulcers to accelerate wound healing. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of risk assessment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE (1946 through February 2014), CINAHL (1998 through February 2014), the Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and reference lists. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity, resource use, diagnostic accuracy, measures of risk, and harms. This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients at risk for pressure ulcers. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends that clinicians should perform a risk assessment to identify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends that clinicians should choose advanced static mattresses or advanced static overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends against using alternating-air mattresses or alternating-air overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

The paucity of evidence supporting screening for stages 1-3 CKD in asymptomatic patients with or without risk factors.

The American College of Physicians recently published a guideline on screening for CKD that recommends against screening for CKD in asymptomatic adults without risk factors. The generally accepted criteria for population-based screening for disease state that screening should improve important clinical outcomes while limiting harms for those individuals screened. However, CKD screening does not meet these criteria. There is currently no evidence evaluating or demonstrating benefits for providing early treatment for patients identified via screening who do not have risk factors. On the other hand, harms are associated with the screening and include false-positive results, unnecessary testing and treatment, and disease labeling.

Screening pelvic examination in adult women: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the utility of screening pelvic examination for the detection of pathology in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic review of the published literature in the English language from 1946 through January 2014 identified using MEDLINE and hand-searching. Evaluated outcomes include morbidity; mortality; and harms, including overdiagnosis, overtreatment, diagnostic procedure-related harms, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population includes asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION: ACP recommends against performing screening pelvic examination in asymptomatic, nonpregnant, adult women (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is commonly used in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Evidence demonstrates that it is indicated only in certain situations, and inappropriate use generates unnecessary costs and exposes patients to harms without improving outcomes. METHODS: The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians reviewed evidence regarding the indications for, and yield of, upper endoscopy in the setting of GERD, and to highlight how clinicians can increase the delivery of high-value health care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with heartburn and alarm symptoms (dysphagia, bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and recurrent vomiting). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with: Typical GERD symptoms that persist despite a therapeutic trial of 4 to 8 weeks of twice-daily proton-pump inhibitor therapy. Severe erosive esophagitis after a 2-month course of proton-pump inhibitor therapy to assess healing and rule out Barrett esophagus. Recurrent endoscopy after this follow-up examination is not indicated in the absence of Barrett esophagus. History of esophageal stricture who have recurrent symptoms of dysphagia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Upper endoscopy may be indicated: In men older than 50 years with chronic GERD symptoms (symptoms for more than 5 years) and additional risk factors (nocturnal reflux symptoms, hiatal hernia, elevated body mass index, tobacco use, and intra-abdominal distribution of fat) to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett esophagus. For surveillance evaluation in men and women with a history of Barrett esophagus. In men and women with Barrett esophagus and no dysplasia, surveillance examinations should occur at intervals no more frequently than 3 to 5 years. More frequent intervals are indicated in patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia.

The influence of comorbidities on overall survival among older women diagnosed with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that summary measures of comorbid conditions are associated with decreased overall survival in breast cancer patients. However, less is known about associations between specific comorbid conditions on the survival of breast cancer patients. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify primary breast cancers diagnosed from 1992 to 2000 among women aged 66 years or older. Inpatient, outpatient, and physician visits within the Medicare system were searched to determine the presence of 13 comorbid conditions present at the time of diagnosis. Overall survival was estimated using age-specific Kaplan-Meier curves, and mortality was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, race and/or ethnicity, tumor stage, cancer prognostic markers, and treatment. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The study population included 64,034 patients with breast cancer diagnosed at a median age of 75 years. None of the selected comorbid conditions were identified in 37,306 (58%) of the 64,034 patients in the study population. Each of the 13 comorbid conditions examined was associated with decreased overall survival and increased mortality (from prior myocardial infarction, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of death = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.19, P = .006; to liver disease, adjusted HR of death = 2.32, 95% CI = 1.97 to 2.73, P < .001). When patients of age 66-74 years were stratified by stage and individual comorbidity status, patients with each comorbid condition and a stage I tumor had similar or poorer overall survival compared with patients who had no comorbid conditions and stage II tumors. CONCLUSIONS: In a US population of older breast cancer patients, 13 individual comorbid conditions were associated with decreased overall survival and increased mortality.

Patient acceptance of a novel preventive care delivery system.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient acceptance of a preventive care model employing outreach by non-physician experts outside of clinic visits. METHODS: Questionnaire completed in 2005 by patients in the waiting room of an academic general medicine practice associated with the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center. Topics included the role of primary care providers in coordinating health care; interest in being contacted by non-PCPs between visits; and willingness to communicate with such experts by phone, e-mail, and internet. RESULTS: 95% of the patients completed the survey (n=354). 93% of these affirmed either that requiring primary care provider involvement in preventive health care is not always necessary, is inconvenient, or represents an unnecessary expense. More than 70% were open to a non-PCP-centered method of receiving preventive services. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with poorer self-rated health, however, were less likely to express interest in the concept. CONCLUSION: Our patients were open to a non-traditional model of delivering preventive care. This model could improve delivery of preventive services. In instituting this system, it would be important to pay close attention to the concerns of vulnerable populations.

Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy has become a preferred colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modality. Little is known about why patients who are referred for colonoscopy do not complete the recommended procedures. Prior adherence studies have evaluated colonoscopy only in combination with flexible sigmoidoscopy, failed to differentiate between screening and diagnostic procedures, and have examined cancellations/no-shows, but not nonscheduling, as mechanisms of nonadherence. METHODS: Sociodemographic predictors of screening completion were assessed in a retrospective cohort of 647 patients referred for colonoscopy at a major university hospital. Then, using a qualitative study design, a convenience sample of patients who never completed screening after referral (n=52) was interviewed by telephone, and comparisons in reported reasons for nonadherence were made by gender. RESULTS: Half of all patients referred for colonoscopy failed to complete the procedure, overwhelmingly because of nonscheduling. In multivariable analysis, female sex, younger age, and insurance type predicted poorer adherence. Patient-reported barriers to screening completion included cognitive-emotional factors (e.g., lack of perceived risk for CRC, fear of pain, and concerns about modesty and the bowel preparation), logistic obstacles (e.g., cost, other health problems, and competing demands), and health system barriers (e.g., scheduling challenges, long waiting times). Women reported more concerns about modesty and other aspects of the procedure than men. Only 40% of patients were aware of alternative screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to screening colonoscopy referrals is sub-optimal and may be improved by better communication with patients, counseling to help resolve logistic barriers, and improvements in colonoscopy referral and scheduling mechanisms.

Women's misconceptions about cancer screening: implications for informed decision-making.

Informed decision-making about cancer screening requires that patients have a correct understanding of a test's purpose, benefits, and risks. Misconceptions, however, may be common. Semi-structured interviews were carried out and thematically coded using a purposive sample of 24 socioeconomically diverse white, African American, Latino and Chinese American women recruited from general medicine practices and community settings. Interviews focused on participants ideas related to cancer prevention and screening. Women expressed cancer-related beliefs characterized by inaccuracies, distortions, and over-simplifications. Many of these beliefs may go unrecognized in clinical settings yet have a profound influence on risk communication and, therefore, informed decision-making. Effective communication depends, first, on clinicians and patients sharing an accurate understanding of background concepts such as "prevention," "screening," and "cancer."