Development of a Health Equity Framework for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Clinical practice guidelines can play an important role in mitigating health inequities. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has prioritized addressing health equity and racism in its recommendations. Objective: To develop a framework that would allow the USPSTF to incorporate a health equity lens that spans the entirety of its recommendation-making process. Evidence Review: Key guidance, policy, and explanatory frameworks related to health equity were identified, and their recommendations and findings were mapped to current USPSTF methods. USPSTF members as well as staff from multiple entities supporting the USPSTF portfolio were consulted. Based on all the gathered information, a draft health equity framework and checklist were developed; they were then circulated to the USPSTF's key partners for input and review. Findings: An equity framework was developed that could be applied to all phases of the recommendation process: (1) topic nomination, selection, and prioritization; (2) development of the work plan; (3) evidence review; (4) evidence deliberation; (5) development of the recommendation statement; and (6) dissemination of recommendations. For each phase, several considerations and checklist items to address are presented. These items include using health equity as a prioritization criterion and engaging a diverse group of stakeholders at the earliest phases in identifying topics for recommendations; developing necessary equity-relevant questions (eg, beyond effectiveness and harms) to address during the protocol phase; using methods in synthesizing the evidence and contextual issues in the evidence review related to specific populations experiencing a disproportionate burden of disease; and examining the magnitude and certainty of net benefit, implementation considerations, risk assessment, and evidence gaps through an equity lens when developing evidence-based recommendations. Conclusions and Relevance: Executing this entire framework and checklist as described will be challenging and will take additional time and resources. Nonetheless, whether adopted in its entirety or in parts, this framework offers guidance to the USPSTF, as well as other evidence-based guideline entities, in its mission to develop a more transparent, consistent, and intentional approach to addressing health equity in its recommendations.

Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models Extension: Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool Extension to Assess Racial and Ethnic Equity-Related Risk of Bias for Clinical Prediction Models.

Introduction: Despite mounting evidence that the inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models may contribute to health disparities, existing critical appraisal tools do not directly address such equity considerations. Objective: This study developed a critical appraisal tool extension to assess algorithmic bias in clinical prediction models. Methods: A modified e-Delphi approach was utilized to develop and obtain expert consensus on a set of racial and ethnic equity-based signaling questions for appraisal of risk of bias in clinical prediction models. Through a series of virtual meetings, initial pilot application, and an online survey, individuals with expertise in clinical prediction model development, systematic review methodology, and health equity developed and refined this tool. Results: Consensus was reached for ten equity-based signaling questions, which led to the development of the Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models (CARE-CPM) extension. This extension is intended for use along with existing critical appraisal tools for clinical prediction models. Conclusion: CARE-CPM provides a valuable risk-of-bias assessment tool extension for clinical prediction models to identify potential algorithmic bias and health equity concerns. Further research is needed to test usability, interrater reliability, and application to decision-makers.

Nontraditional Risk Factors in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Incorporating nontraditional risk factors may improve the performance of traditional multivariable risk assessment for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Objective: To systematically review evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force on the benefits and harms of 3 nontraditional risk factors in cardiovascular risk assessment: the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level, and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published through May 22, 2017. Surveillance continued through February 7, 2018. Study Selection: Studies of asymptomatic adults with no known cardiovascular disease. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular events, mortality, risk assessment performance measures (calibration, discrimination, or risk reclassification), and serious adverse events. Results: Forty-three studies (N = 267 244) were included. No adequately powered trials have evaluated the clinical effect of risk assessment with nontraditional risk factors on patient health outcomes. The addition of the ABI (10 studies), hsCRP level (25 studies), or CAC score (19 studies) can improve both discrimination and reclassification; the magnitude and consistency of improvement varies by nontraditional risk factor. For the ABI, improvements in performance were the greatest for women, in whom traditional risk assessment has poor discrimination (C statistic change of 0.112 and net reclassification index [NRI] of 0.096). Results were inconsistent for hsCRP level, with the largest analysis (n = 166 596) showing a minimal effect on risk prediction (C statistic change of 0.0039, NRI of 0.0152). The largest improvements in discrimination (C statistic change ranging from 0.018 to 0.144) and reclassification (NRI ranging from 0.084 to 0.35) were seen for CAC score, although CAC score may inappropriately reclassify individuals not having cardiovascular events into higher-risk categories, as determined by negative nonevent NRI. Evidence for the harms of nontraditional risk factor assessment was limited to computed tomography imaging for CAC scoring (8 studies) and showed that radiation exposure is low but may result in additional testing. Conclusions and Relevance: There are insufficient adequately powered clinical trials evaluating the incremental effect of the ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC score in risk assessment and initiation of preventive therapy. Furthermore, the clinical meaning of improvements in measures of calibration, discrimination, and reclassification risk prediction studies is uncertain.