Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear. Objective: To review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024. Study Selection: English-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms. Results: Seven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.

Screening for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a leading cause of pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To conduct a targeted systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published between January 1, 2014, and January 4, 2022; surveillance through February 21, 2023. Study Selection: English-language comparative effectiveness studies comparing screening strategies in pregnant or postpartum individuals. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised articles and extracted relevant data from fair-or good-quality studies; no quantitative synthesis was conducted. Main outcomes and measures: Morbidity or mortality, measures of health-related quality of life. Results: The review included 6 fair-quality studies (5 trials and 1 nonrandomized study; N = 10 165) comparing changes in prenatal screening practices with usual care, which was routine screening at in-person office visits. No studies addressed screening for new-onset hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the postpartum period. One trial (n = 2521) evaluated home blood pressure measurement as a supplement to usual care; 3 trials (total n = 5203) evaluated reduced prenatal visit schedules. One study (n = 2441) evaluated proteinuria screening conducted only for specific clinical indications, compared with a historical control group that received routine proteinuria screening. One additional trial (n = 80) only addressed the comparative harms of home blood pressure measurement. The studies did not report statistically significant differences in maternal and infant complications with alternate strategies compared with usual care; however, estimates were imprecise for serious, rare health outcomes. Home blood pressure measurement added to prenatal care visits was not associated with earlier diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (104.3 vs 106.2 days), and incidence was not different between groups in 3 trials of reduced prenatal visit schedules. No harms of the different screening strategies were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: This review did not identify evidence that any alternative screening strategies for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were more effective than routine blood pressure measurement at in-person prenatal visits. Morbidity and mortality from hypertensive disorders of pregnancy can be prevented, yet American Indian/Alaska Native persons and Black persons experience inequitable rates of adverse outcomes. Further research is needed to identify screening approaches that may lead to improved disease detection and health outcomes.

ClinGen's Pediatric Actionability Working Group: Clinical actionability of secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing in children and adolescents.

PURPOSE: Synthesis and curation of evidence regarding the clinical actionability of secondary findings (SFs) from genome-scale sequencing are needed to support decision-making on reporting of these findings. To assess actionability of SFs in children and adolescents, the Clinical Genome Resource established the Pediatric Actionability Working Group (AWG). METHODS: The Pediatric AWG modified the framework of the existing Adult AWG, which included production of summary reports of actionability for genes and associated conditions and consensus actionability scores for specific outcome-intervention pairs. Modification of the adult framework for the pediatric setting included accounting for special considerations for reporting presymptomatic or predictive genetic findings in the pediatric context, such as maintaining future autonomy by not disclosing conditions not actionable until adulthood. The Pediatric AWG then applied this new framework to genes and associated conditions with putative actionability. RESULTS: As of September 2021, the Pediatric AWG applied the new framework to 70 actionability topics representing 143 genes. Reports and scores are publicly available at www.clinicalgenome.org. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric AWG continues to curate gene-condition topics and build an evidence-based resource, supporting clinical communities and decision-makers with policy development on the return of SFs in pediatric populations.

Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. Objective: To conduct a targeted systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for COPD and the treatment of COPD to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) update of the 2016 recommendation statement on COPD screening. Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL for relevant studies published between January 1, 2015, to January 22, 2021; surveillance through March 25, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening in individuals who do not recognize or report respiratory symptoms; studies of treatment in persons with mild or moderate, or minimally symptomatic, COPD. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant data from fair- or good-quality studies; no quantitative synthesis was conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: COPD-related morbidity or mortality, measures of health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Results: The review included no trials on the effectiveness of screening, 3 trials or analyses (n = 20 058) of pharmacologic treatment published since 2015, 13 trials (n = 3657) on nonpharmacologic interventions, and 2 large observational studies (n = 243 517) addressing the harms of pharmacologic treatment published since 2015. The results from the clinical trials of pharmacologic therapy are consistent with the previous review supporting the USPSTF that bronchodilators with or without inhaled corticosteroids can reduce COPD exacerbations and tiotropium can improve health-related quality of life in adults with moderate COPD. Overall, there was no consistent benefit observed for any type of nonpharmacologic intervention across a range of patient outcomes. None of the included treatment trials that reported adverse effects found significant harms. Two large observational studies in a screen-relevant population demonstrated an association of the initiation of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting beta agonist with the risk of a serious cardiovascular event in treatment-naïve patients and an association of inhaled corticosteroids use with the risk of developing diabetes. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this targeted evidence update are generally consistent with the findings of the previous systematic review supporting the 2016 USPSTF recommendation. Evidence of pharmacologic treatment was still largely limited to persons with moderate airflow obstruction, and there was no consistent benefit observed for a range of nonpharmacologic interventions in mild to moderate COPD or in minimally symptomatic persons with COPD.

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

Importance: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality. Objective: To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening. Results: A total of 52 studies (N = 215 534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140 642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11 309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57 128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53 183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice.

Viral Myocarditis-Incidence, Diagnosis and Management.

Viral myocarditis has an incidence rate of 10 to 22 per 100,000 individuals. The presentation pattern of viral myocarditis can range from nonspecific symptoms of fatigue and shortness of breath to more aggressive symptoms that mimic acute coronary syndrome. After the initial acute phase presentation of viral myocarditis, the virus may be cleared, resulting in full clinical recovery; the viral infection may persist; or the viral infection may lead to a persistent autoimmune-mediated inflammatory process with continuing symptoms of heart failure. As a result of these 3 possibilities, the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of viral myocarditis can be extremely unpredictable and challenging for the clinician. Herein, the incidence, etiology, definition and classification, clinical manifestation, diagnosis, pathogenesis, prognosis, and treatment of viral myocarditis are reviewed, and how acute clinical care teams might differentiate between viral myocarditis and other acute cardiac conditions is discussed.

Cost Effectiveness of Age-Specific Screening Intervals for People With Family Histories of Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Relative risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases with age among individuals with a family history of CRC. However, no screening recommendations specify less frequent screening with increasing age. We aimed to determine whether such a refinement would be cost effective. METHODS: We determined the relative risk for CRC for individuals based on age and number of affected first-degree relatives (FDRs) using data from publications. For each number of affected FDRs, we used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis model to estimate costs and effects of colonoscopy screening strategies with different age ranges and intervals. Screening was then optimized sequentially, starting with the youngest age group, and allowing the interval of screening to change at certain ages. Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year were considered cost effective. RESULTS: For people with 1 affected FDR (92% of those with a family history), screening every 3 years beginning at an age of 40 years is most cost effective. If no adenomas are found, the screening interval can gradually be extended to 5 and 7 years, at ages 45 and 55 years, respectively. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, individuals with more affected FDRs should start screening earlier and at shorter intervals. However, frequency can be reduced if no abnormalities are found. CONCLUSIONS: Using a microsimulation model, we found that for individuals with a family history of CRC, it is cost effective to gradually increase the screening interval if several subsequent screening colonoscopies have negative results and no new cases of CRC are found in family members.

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

Importance: Screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria can identify patients for whom treatment might be beneficial for preventing symptomatic infection and other health outcomes. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment in adults, including during pregnancy, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records), and Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials; surveillance through May 24, 2019. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies on benefits and harms of screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria; RCTs on benefits and harms of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment. Eligible populations included unselected, asymptomatic individuals without known urinary tract conditions. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate benefits of the interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptomatic infection; function, morbidity, mortality; pregnancy complications and birth outcomes. Results: Nineteen studies (N = 8443) meeting inclusion criteria were identified. Two cohort studies (n = 5289) found fewer cases of pyelonephritis in the cohorts of screened pregnant women (0.5%) than within retrospective comparisons of unscreened cohorts (2.2% and 1.8%); the larger study estimated a statistically significant relative risk of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.15-0.60). No studies examined screening in nonpregnant populations. Among 12 trials of asymptomatic bacteriuria screening and treatment during pregnancy (n = 2377; 1 conducted within past 30 years), there were reduced rates of pyelonephritis (range, 0%-16.5% for the intervention group and 2.2%-36.4% for the control group; pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.24 [95% CI, 0.14-0.40]; 12 trials) and low birth weight (range, 2.5%-14.8% for the intervention group and 6.7%-21.4% for the control group; pooled RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.90]; 7 trials). There was no significant difference in infant mortality (pooled RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.29-3.26]; 6 trials). Five RCTs of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment in nonpregnant adults (n = 777) did not report any significant differences in risk of infection, mobility, or mortality. Limited evidence on harms of screening or treatment was available, and no statistically significant differences were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Screening and treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria during pregnancy was associated with reduced rates of pyelonephritis and low birth weights, but the available evidence was not current, with only 1 study conducted in the past 30 years. Benefits of asymptomatic bacteriuria treatment in nonpregnant adult populations were not found. Trial evidence on harms of asymptomatic bacteriuria antibiotic treatment was limited.

Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.

The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.

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

Importance: Ovarian cancer is relatively rare but the fifth-leading cause of cancer mortality among United States women. Objective: To systematically review evidence on benefits and harms of ovarian cancer screening among average-risk women to inform the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials; studies published in English from January 1, 2003, through January 31, 2017; ongoing surveillance in targeted publications through November 22, 2017. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of ovarian cancer screening in average-risk women that reported mortality or quality-of-life outcomes. Interventions included transvaginal ultrasound, cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) testing, or their combination. Comparators were usual care or no screening. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling of results was not conducted because of the small number of studies and heterogeneity of interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ovarian cancer mortality, false-positive screening results and surgery, surgical complications, and psychological effects of screening. Results: Four trials (N = 293 587) were included; of these, 3 (n = 293 038) assessed ovarian cancer mortality, and 1 (n = 549) reported only on psychological outcomes. Evaluated screening interventions included transvaginal ultrasound alone, transvaginal ultrasound plus CA-125 testing, and CA-125 testing alone. Test positivity for CA-125 was defined by a fixed serum level cutpoint or by a proprietary risk algorithm based on CA-125 level, change in CA-125 level over time, and age (risk of ovarian cancer algorithm [ROCA]). No trial found a significant difference in ovarian cancer mortality with screening. In the 2 large screening trials (PLCO and UKCTOCS, n = 271 103), there was not a statistically significant difference in complete intention-to-screen analyses of ovarian, fallopian, and peritoneal cancer cases associated with screening (PLCO: rate ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.82-1.71]; UKCTOCS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.76-1.09] for transvaginal ultrasound and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.08] for CA-125 ROCA). Within these 2 trials, screening led to surgery for suspected ovarian cancer in 1% of women without cancer for CA-125 ROCA and in 3% for transvaginal ultrasound with or without CA-125 screening, with major complications occurring among 3% to 15% of surgery. Evidence on psychological harms was limited but nonsignificant except in the case of repeat follow-up scans and tests, which increased the risk of psychological morbidity in a subsample of UKCTOCS participants based on the General Health Questionnaire 12 (score ≥4) (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.39]). Conclusions and Relevance: In randomized trials conducted among average-risk, asymptomatic women, ovarian cancer mortality did not significantly differ between screened women and those with no screening or in usual care. Screening harms included surgery (with major surgical complications) in women found to not have cancer. Further research is needed to identify effective approaches for reducing ovarian cancer incidence and mortality.

Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Weight Loss Interventions to Prevent Obesity-Related Morbidity and Mortality in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Overweight and obesity have been associated with adverse health effects. Objective: To systematically review evidence on benefits and harms of behavioral and pharmacotherapy weight loss and weight loss maintenance interventions in adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed Publisher-Supplied Records, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published through June 6, 2017; ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials through August 2017; and ongoing surveillance in targeted publications through March 23, 2018. Studies from previous reviews were reevaluated for inclusion. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) focusing on weight loss or weight loss maintenance in adults. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were abstracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for weight loss outcomes in behavior-based interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes, weight loss or weight loss maintenance, reduction in obesity-related conditions, and adverse events. Results: A total of 122 RCTs (N = 62 533) and 2 observational studies (N = 209 993) were identified. Compared with controls, participants in behavior-based interventions had greater mean weight loss at 12 to 18 months (-2.39 kg [95% CI, -2.86 to -1.93]; 67 studies [n = 22065]) and less weight regain (-1.59 kg [95% CI, -2.38 to -0.79]; 8 studies [n = 1408]). Studies of medication-based weight loss and maintenance interventions also reported greater weight loss or less weight regain in intervention compared with placebo groups at 12 to 18 months (range, -0.6 to -5.8 kg; no meta-analysis). Participants with prediabetes in weight loss interventions had a lower risk of developing diabetes compared with controls (relative risk, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89]). There was no evidence of other benefits, but most health outcomes such as mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer were infrequently reported. Small improvements in quality of life in some medication trials were noted but were of unclear clinical significance. There was no evidence of harm such as cardiovascular disease from behavior-based interventions; higher rates of adverse events were associated with higher dropout rates in medication groups than in placebo groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Behavior-based weight loss interventions with or without weight loss medications were associated with more weight loss and a lower risk of developing diabetes than control conditions. Weight loss medications, but not behavior-based interventions, were associated with higher rates of harms. Long-term weight and health outcomes data, as well as data on important subgroups, were limited.

A standardized, evidence-based protocol to assess clinical actionability of genetic disorders associated with genomic variation.

PURPOSE: Genome and exome sequencing can identify variants unrelated to the primary goal of sequencing. Detecting pathogenic variants associated with an increased risk of a medical disorder enables clinical interventions to improve future health outcomes in patients and their at-risk relatives. The Clinical Genome Resource, or ClinGen, aims to assess clinical actionability of genes and associated disorders as part of a larger effort to build a central resource of information regarding the clinical relevance of genomic variation for use in precision medicine and research. METHODS: We developed a practical, standardized protocol to identify available evidence and generate qualitative summary reports of actionability for disorders and associated genes. We applied a semiquantitative metric to score actionability. RESULTS: We generated summary reports and actionability scores for the 56 genes and associated disorders recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for return as secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing. We also describe the challenges that arose during the development of the protocol that highlight important issues in characterizing actionability across a range of disorders. CONCLUSION: The ClinGen framework for actionability assessment will assist research and clinical communities in making clear, efficient, and consistent determinations of actionability based on transparent criteria to guide analysis and reporting of findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing.Genet Med 18 12, 1258-1268.

Screening for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

IMPORTANCE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature on the accuracy of screening questionnaires and office-based screening pulmonary function testing and the efficacy and harms of treatment of screen-detected COPD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant English-language studies published through January 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and studies. The search yielded 13,141 unique citations; 465 full-text articles were reviewed, and 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers rated the quality of each study using USPSTF criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]; treatment efficacy (COPD exacerbations, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and dyspnea); and treatment harms. RESULTS: All screening questionnaires were based on symptoms as well as risk factors such as age and smoking history. The COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire was the most extensively studied (5 studies, n = 3048), with moderate overall performance for COPD detection: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.65 to 0.72; sensitivity, 80% to 93%; and specificity, 24% to 49%, at a threshold of greater than 16.5. Positive predictive value and NPV ranged from 17% to 45% and 76% to 98%, respectively. For pulmonary function-based screening tools, FEV1/FEV6 was the best studied (3 studies, n = 1587), with AUC ranging from 0.84 to 0.85. Sensitivity ranged from 51% to 80%. Specificity (range, 90%-95%) and PPV (range, 63%-75%) appeared better than questionnaires. There was not strong evidence to support that screening and supplying smokers with spirometry results improves smoking cessation rates. Treatment trials were unavailable for screen-detected patients. Trials that reported outcomes in patients with mild to moderate COPD included 2 trials of long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs) (n = 3174), 1 RCT of LABAs and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (n = 1097), 5 RCTs of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium (n = 4592), and 6 RCTs of ICS (n = 3983). They suggested no benefit in all-cause mortality, but a decrease in annual rates of exacerbations with pharmacologic treatments. Few trials reported harms for any individual drug class. Adverse effects were generally mild (eg, dry mouth and cough). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was no direct evidence available to determine the benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic adults for COPD using questionnaires or office-based screening pulmonary function testing or to determine the benefits of treatment in screen-detected populations. Indirect evidence suggests that the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire has moderate overall performance for COPD detection. Among patients with mild to moderate COPD, the benefit of pharmacotherapy for reducing exacerbations was modest.

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

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC. DATA SOURCES: Searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, with surveillance through February 23, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting CRC or adenomas, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Four pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating 1-time or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy (n = 458,002) were associated with decreased CRC-specific mortality compared with no screening (incidence rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.82). Five RCTs with multiple rounds of biennial screening with guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (n = 419,966) showed reduced CRC-specific mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, at 19.5 years to RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93, at 30 years). Seven studies of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) with bowel preparation demonstrated per-person sensitivity and specificity to detect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 98% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; specificity from 89% [95% CI, 84%-93%] to 91% [95% CI, 88%-93%]); variability and imprecision may be due to differences in study designs or CTC protocols. Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged from 75% (95% CI, 63%-84%) to 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%). On the basis of a single stool specimen, the most commonly evaluated families of fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) demonstrated good sensitivity (range, 73%-88%) and specificity (range, 90%-96%). One study (n = 9989) found that FIT plus stool DNA test had better sensitivity in detecting CRC than FIT alone (92%) but lower specificity (84%). Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforations (4/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 2-5 in 10,000) and major bleeds (8/10,000 procedures, 95% CI, 5-14 in 10,000). Computed tomographic colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool tests have differing levels of evidence to support their use, ability to detect cancer and precursor lesions, and risk of serious adverse events in average-risk adults. Although CRC screening has a large body of supporting evidence, additional research is still needed.

Family history and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review.

PURPOSE: Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a known risk factor for CRC and encompasses both genetic and shared environmental risks. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to estimate the impact of family history on the natural history of CRC and adherence to screening. RESULTS: We found high heterogeneity in family-history definitions, the most common definition being one or more first-degree relatives. The prevalence of family history may be lower than the commonly cited 10%, and confirms evidence for increasing levels of risk associated with increasing family-history burden. There is evidence for higher prevalence of adenomas and of multiple adenomas in people with family history of CRC but no evidence for differential adenoma location or adenoma progression by family history. Limited data regarding the natural history of CRC by family history suggest a differential age or stage at cancer diagnosis and mixed evidence with respect to tumor location. Adherence to recommended colonoscopy screening was higher in people with a family history of CRC. CONCLUSION: Stratification based on polygenic and/or multifactorial risk assessment may mature to the point of displacing family history-based approaches, but for the foreseeable future, family history may remain a valuable clinical tool for identifying individuals at increased risk for CRC.

Systematic review of the predictive effect of MSI status in colorectal cancer patients undergoing 5FU-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed the evidence for the interaction of microsatellite instability status (MSI) and treatment with 5FU in colorectal cancer to determine how well MSI status predicts health outcomes in patients undergoing 5FU-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a search of four electronic databases through June 2013. We considered studies that included both colorectal cancer patients treated with 5FU-based chemotherapy and untreated patients with survival outcomes presented by MSI status. RESULTS: We identified 16 studies for qualitative analysis (9,212 patients) with 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis. The microsatellite stable (MSS) group showed an effect of 5FU treatment on disease-free survival (HR of 0.62 [95% CI: 0.54, 0.71]) and overall survival (HR of 0.65 [95% CI: 0.54, 0.79]), indicating that MSS patients who received 5FU treatment had longer survival than MSS patients who were untreated. The effect of 5FU treatment was not statistically significant for microsatellite high (MSI-H) patients for disease-free survival (HR of 0.84 [95% CI: 0.53, 1.32]) or overall survival (HR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.43, 1.03]). However, the summarized point estimates of the effects of 5FU treatment for the MSS and MSI-H groups were not different at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses indicate that treatment with 5FU-based chemotherapy improves disease-free and overall survival in CRC patients, but that there is no difference in the effect of treatment based on MSI status. Therefore, the use of MSI status to guide treatment decisions about the use of 5FU treatment for CRC has no significant benefits for patients.

Adverse drug reactions in older people following hospitalisation: a qualitative exploration of general practitioners' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Older people have greater comorbidity and medication burden. Adverse drug reactions occur in up to 30% of older people within one month of hospital discharge. General practitioners are key stakeholders in transitions of care from hospital to the community. AIM: The study aimed to explore general practitioner perspectives of adverse drug reactions in older people after hospitalisation, investigating the medication-related issues encountered and possible approaches to reduce the risk. METHOD: An invitation to participate in the study was sent to general practitioners in Southern Tasmania, Australia. A semi-structured interview occurred in person at their practice or online. The questions covered experiences with managing medication in older people after hospital discharge, challenges and risks involving adverse drug reactions and suggestions to prevent adverse drug reactions. The interviews were transcribed and analysed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twelve general practitioners were interviewed, revealing four themes describing challenges, including (i) complex patients and acceptance of risk, (ii) patient confusion and decline in hospital, (iii) time taken to manage older patients and (iv) communication challenges. Three themes describing recommendations were identified, including (i) clear communication on discharge, (ii) patient involvement and (iii) roles for pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Prevention of adverse drug reactions after hospital discharge may require clear and timely communication to general practitioners, patients and families to be educated and empowered to help manage their own health and risk, and pharmacists to support both patients and general practitioners in managing the risks.

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.