Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 20 de 149
1.
Child Obes ; 2024 Mar 28.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38546529

Background: Previous research has identified food insecurity as a risk factor for obesity but those studies employed cross-sectional designs and were largely focused on adults and young children. In addition, there is a paucity of studies examining the association between food insecurity and changes in children's overall diet quality. This study aimed to assess whether food insecurity is associated with subsequent changes in diet quality and BMI z-scores over 2 years among 7- to 12-year-old children. Methods: We used 2011-2019 secondary data (n = 404) from three randomized controlled trials in Minnesota. Food insecurity was identified using the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module at baseline (Time 0). Diet quality was determined using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 from 24-hour recalls, and BMI z-scores were calculated using measured height and weight. These two outcomes were measured at Time 0, Time 1 (10-12 months from Time 0), and Time 2 (15-24 months from Time 0). Results: Compared with children from food-secure households, those from food-insecure households experienced a 0.13 greater increase in BMI z-scores from Time 0 to Time 2 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04 to 0.21] and a 4.5 point increase in HEI-2015 from Time 0 to Time 1 (95% CI: 0.99 to 8.01). Conclusion: Household food insecurity may widen weight disparities among elementary school-aged children. Further studies are needed to identify the role of diet quality in weight changes among children with food insecurity. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01538615, NCT02029976, NCT02973815.

2.
JAMA ; 329(15): 1290-1295, 2023 04 18.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37071089

Importance: Skin cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the US. There are different types of skin cancer varying in disease incidence and severity. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas are the most common types of skin cancer but infrequently lead to death or substantial morbidity. Melanomas represent about 1% of skin cancer and cause the most skin cancer deaths. Melanoma is about 30 times more common in White persons than in Black persons. However, persons with darker skin color are often diagnosed at later stages, when skin cancer is more difficult to treat. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Population: Asymptomatic adolescents and adults who do not have a history of premalignant or malignant skin lesions. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in asymptomatic adolescents and adults. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in adolescents and adults. (I statement).


Carcinoma, Basal Cell , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell , Early Detection of Cancer , Mass Screening , Melanoma , Skin Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Humans , Early Detection of Cancer/adverse effects , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Melanoma/diagnosis , Physical Examination/adverse effects , Physical Examination/methods , Risk Assessment , Skin Neoplasms/diagnosis , Skin Neoplasms/prevention & control , Carcinoma, Basal Cell/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/diagnosis
3.
JAMA ; 329(6): 502-507, 2023 02 14.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36786784

Importance: Genital herpes is a common sexually transmitted infection caused by 2 related viruses, herpes simplex type 1 (HSV-1) and herpes simplex type 2 (HSV-2). Infection is lifelong; currently, there is no cure for HSV infection. Antiviral medications may provide clinical benefits to symptomatic persons. Transmission of HSV from a pregnant person to their infant can occur, most commonly during delivery; when genital lesions or prodromal symptoms are present, cesarean delivery can reduce the risk of transmission. Neonatal herpes infection is uncommon yet can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Objective: To reaffirm its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update on targeted key questions to systematically evaluate the evidence on accuracy, benefits, and harms of routine serologic screening for HSV-2 infection in asymptomatic adolescents, adults, and pregnant persons. Population: Adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons, without known history, signs, or symptoms of genital HSV infection. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms outweigh the benefits for population-based screening for genital HSV infection in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against routine serologic screening for genital HSV infection in asymptomatic adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. (D recommendation).


Herpes Genitalis , Herpesvirus 1, Human , Herpesvirus 2, Human , Mass Screening , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious , Serologic Tests , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Pregnancy , Herpes Genitalis/diagnosis , Herpes Genitalis/drug therapy , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/psychology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/drug therapy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Serologic Tests/adverse effects , Serologic Tests/methods , Serologic Tests/psychology , Herpes Simplex/diagnosis
4.
JAMA ; 328(19): 1945-1950, 2022 11 15.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36378202

Importance: Current prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in the US is not well established; however, based on cohort and survey data, in 2007-2010 the estimated prevalence of at least mild OSA (defined as an apnea-hypoxia index [AHI] ≥5) plus symptoms of daytime sleepiness among adults aged 30 to 70 years was 14% for men and 5% for women, and the estimated prevalence of moderate to severe OSA (defined as AHI ≥15) was 13% for men and 6% for women. Severe OSA is associated with increased all-cause mortality. Other adverse health outcomes associated with untreated OSA include cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular events, type 2 diabetes, cognitive impairment, decreased quality of life, and motor vehicle crashes. Objective: To update its 2017 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for OSA in adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults (18 years or older) and adults with unrecognized symptoms of OSA. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA in the general adult population. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for OSA in the general adult population. (I statement).


Mass Screening , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Advisory Committees , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/etiology , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Prevalence , Quality of Life , Risk Assessment , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/complications , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/diagnosis , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/epidemiology , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/mortality , United States/epidemiology
5.
JAMA ; 328(17): 1740-1746, 2022 11 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36318127

Importance: Menopause is defined as the cessation of a person's menstrual cycle. It is defined retrospectively, 12 months after the final menstrual period. Perimenopause, or the menopausal transition, is the few-year time period preceding a person's final menstrual period and is characterized by increasing menstrual cycle length variability and periods of amenorrhea, and often symptoms such as vasomotor dysfunction. The prevalence and incidence of most chronic diseases (eg, cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and fracture) increase with age, and US persons who reach menopause are expected on average to live more than another 30 years. Objective: To update its 2017 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic (ie, oral or transdermal) hormone therapy for the prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons and whether outcomes vary by age or by timing of intervention after menopause. Population: Asymptomatic postmenopausal persons who are considering hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic medical conditions. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons with an intact uterus has no net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy has no net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy. (D recommendation).


Chronic Disease , Estrogens , Hormone Replacement Therapy , Hormones , Postmenopause , Progestins , Female , Humans , Chronic Disease/prevention & control , Estrogens/adverse effects , Estrogens/therapeutic use , Primary Prevention , Progestins/adverse effects , Progestins/therapeutic use , Hormone Replacement Therapy/adverse effects , Hormone Replacement Therapy/methods , Hormones/adverse effects , Hormones/therapeutic use
6.
JAMA ; 328(14): 1438-1444, 2022 10 11.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36219403

Importance: Anxiety disorder, a common mental health condition in the US, comprises a group of related conditions characterized by excessive fear or worry that present as emotional and physical symptoms. The 2018-2019 National Survey of Children's Health found that 7.8% of children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 years had a current anxiety disorder. Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. This is a new recommendation. Population: Children and adolescents 18 years or younger who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder or are not showing recognized signs or symptoms of anxiety. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for anxiety in children and adolescents aged 8 to 18 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on screening for anxiety in children 7 years or younger. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for anxiety in children and adolescents aged 8 to 18 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children 7 years or younger. (I statement).


Anxiety Disorders , Mass Screening , Adolescent , Advisory Committees , Anxiety Disorders/diagnosis , Child , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Preventive Health Services , Risk Assessment , United States
7.
JAMA ; 328(15): 1534-1542, 2022 10 18.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36219440

Importance: Depression is a leading cause of disability in the US. Children and adolescents with depression typically have functional impairments in their performance at school or work as well as in their interactions with their families and peers. Depression can also negatively affect the developmental trajectories of affected youth. Major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents is strongly associated with recurrent depression in adulthood; other mental disorders; and increased risk for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide completion. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 19 years. Psychiatric disorders and previous suicide attempts increase suicide risk. Objective: To update its 2014 and 2016 recommendations, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening, accuracy of screening, and benefits and harms of treatment of MDD and suicide risk in children and adolescents that would be applicable to primary care settings. Population: Children and adolescents who do not have a diagnosed mental health condition or are not showing recognized signs or symptoms of depression or suicide risk. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for MDD in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on screening for MDD in children 11 years or younger. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on the benefit and harms of screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents owing to a lack of evidence. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for MDD in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children 11 years or younger. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents. (I statement).


Depressive Disorder, Major , Suicide Prevention , Adolescent , Child , Humans , Advisory Committees , Depression/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder, Major/diagnosis , Depressive Disorder, Major/etiology , Disease Susceptibility , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/standards
8.
JAMA ; 328(10): 963-967, 2022 09 13.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36098719

Importance: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 210 000 children and adolescents younger than 20 years had diabetes as of 2018; of these, approximately 23 000 had type 2 diabetes. Youth with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of associated chronic comorbid conditions, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Data indicate that the incidence of type 2 diabetes is rising; from 2002-2003 to 2014-2015, incidence increased from 9.0 cases per 100 000 children and adolescents to 13.8 cases per 100 000 children and adolescents. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant persons younger than 18 years. This is a new recommendation. Population: Children and adolescents younger than 18 years without known diabetes or prediabetes or symptoms of diabetes or prediabetes. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. There is a lack of evidence on the effect of screening for, and early detection and treatment of, type 2 diabetes on health outcomes in youth, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. (I statement).


Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Mass Screening , Prediabetic State , Adolescent , Advisory Committees , Child , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Prediabetic State/diagnosis , Prediabetic State/epidemiology , Preventive Health Services , Risk Assessment
9.
JAMA ; 328(12): 1243-1249, 2022 09 27.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36166020

Importance: Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection that can progress through different stages (primary, secondary, latent, and tertiary) and cause serious health problems if left untreated. Reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis in the US increased from a record low of 2.1 cases per 100 000 population in 2000 and 2001 to 11.9 cases per 100 000 population in 2019. Men account for the majority of cases (83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2019), and rates among women nearly tripled from 2015 to 2019. Objective: To reaffirm its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update focusing on targeted key questions evaluating the performance of risk assessment tools and the benefits and harms of screening for syphilis in nonpregnant adolescents and adults. Population: Asymptomatic, nonpregnant adolescents and adults who have ever been sexually active and are at increased risk for syphilis infection. Evidence Assessment: Using a reaffirmation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that there is a substantial net benefit of screening for syphilis infection in nonpregnant persons who are at increased risk for infection. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for syphilis infection in persons who are at increased risk for infection. (A recommendation).


Mass Screening , Syphilis , Adolescent , Adult , Advisory Committees , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Preventive Health Services , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/diagnosis , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology , Syphilis/diagnosis , Syphilis/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
10.
JAMA ; 328(8): 746-753, 2022 08 23.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35997723

Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and death in the US and is the cause of more than 1 of every 4 deaths. Coronary heart disease is the single leading cause of death and accounts for 43% of deaths attributable to CVD in the US. In 2019, an estimated 558 000 deaths were caused by coronary heart disease and 109 000 deaths were caused by ischemic stroke. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of statins for reducing CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Population: Adults 40 years or older without a history of known CVD and who do not have signs and symptoms of CVD. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that statin use for the prevention of CVD events and all-cause mortality in adults aged 40 to 75 years with no history of CVD and who have 1 or more CVD risk factors (ie, dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, or smoking) and an estimated 10-year CVD event risk of 10% or greater has at least a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that statin use for the prevention of CVD events and all-cause mortality in adults aged 40 to 75 years with no history of CVD and who have 1 or more of these CVD risk factors and an estimated 10-year CVD event risk of 7.5% to less than 10% has at least a small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of statin use for the primary prevention of CVD events and mortality in adults 76 years or older with no history of CVD. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians prescribe a statin for the primary prevention of CVD for adults aged 40 to 75 years who have 1 or more CVD risk factors (ie, dyslipidemia, diabetes, hypertension, or smoking) and an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 10% or greater. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer a statin for the primary prevention of CVD for adults aged 40 to 75 years who have 1 or more of these CVD risk factors and an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 7.5% to less than 10%. The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group than in persons with a 10-year risk of 10% or greater. (C recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of initiating a statin for the primary prevention of CVD events and mortality in adults 76 years or older. (I statement).


Cardiovascular Diseases , Dyslipidemias , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors , Primary Prevention , Adult , Advisory Committees , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Dyslipidemias/complications , Dyslipidemias/drug therapy , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/diagnosis , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Preventive Health Services , Risk Assessment , United States
11.
J Nutr Educ Behav ; 54(10): 939-946, 2022 10.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35909037

OBJECTIVE: To examine home food availability (HFA) and the association with diet quality in preadolescents with elevated body mass index. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis examined HFA and diet quality (using the 2015-Health Eating Index [HEI] derived from 1 or 2 24-hour dietary recalls) among preadolescents (n = 111; aged 8-12 years; body mass index ≥ 75th percentile). A novel ratio of more-to-less healthful items was created to represent HFA. Multivariate linear regression models examined the HFA ratio and individual food and beverage groups as correlates of HEI. RESULTS: The HFA ratio was associated with higher HEI (ß = 5.3 [1.3]; P < 0.001). Home food availability of sweets (ß = -2.6 [0.9]; P = 0.003) and sugar-sweetened beverages (ß = -2.3 [1.0]; P = 0.02) were associated with lower HEI. Home food availability of fruits was associated with higher HEI (ß = 1.3 [0.7]; P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Structuring the HFA so that more healthful choices are available relative to less healthful foods could be an effective approach for improving diet quality in preadolescents at risk for obesity.


Diet, Healthy , Diet , Body Mass Index , Cross-Sectional Studies , Feeding Behavior , Fruit , Humans
13.
JAMA ; 328(4): 367-374, 2022 07 26.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35881115

Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD), which includes heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke, is the leading cause of death in the US. A large proportion of CVD cases can be prevented by addressing modifiable risk factors, including smoking, obesity, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or hypertension, dyslipidemia, lack of physical activity, and unhealthy diet. Adults who adhere to national guidelines for a healthy diet and physical activity have lower rates of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those who do not; however, most US adults do not consume healthy diets or engage in physical activity at recommended levels. Objective: To update its 2017 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to promote healthy behaviors in adults without CVD risk factors. Population: Adults 18 years or older without known CVD risk factors, which include hypertension or elevated blood pressure, dyslipidemia, impaired fasting glucose or glucose tolerance, or mixed or multiple risk factors such as metabolic syndrome or an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 7.5% or greater. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions have a small net benefit on CVD risk in adults without CVD risk factors. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians individualize the decision to offer or refer adults without CVD risk factors to behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy diet and physical activity. (C recommendation).


Behavior Therapy , Cardiovascular Diseases , Diet, Healthy , Exercise , Health Promotion , Adult , Advisory Committees , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Clinical Decision-Making , Counseling , Dyslipidemias/therapy , Glucose , Humans , Hypertension , Precision Medicine , Psychosocial Intervention , Risk Factors , United States
14.
JAMA ; 327(23): 2326-2333, 2022 06 21.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35727271

Importance: According to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 52% of surveyed US adults reported using at least 1 dietary supplement in the prior 30 days and 31% reported using a multivitamin-mineral supplement. The most commonly cited reason for using supplements is for overall health and wellness and to fill nutrient gaps in the diet. Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death and combined account for approximately half of all deaths in the US annually. Inflammation and oxidative stress have been shown to have a role in both cardiovascular disease and cancer, and dietary supplements may have anti-inflammatory and antioxidative effects. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the efficacy of supplementation with single nutrients, functionally related nutrient pairs, or multivitamins for reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality in the general adult population, as well as the harms of supplementation. Population: Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of beta carotene supplementation outweigh the benefits for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF also concludes with moderate certainty that there is no net benefit of supplementation with vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with multivitamins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of supplementation with single or paired nutrients (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. Evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against the use of beta carotene or vitamin E supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of multivitamin supplements for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the use of single- or paired-nutrient supplements (other than beta carotene and vitamin E) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer. (I statement).


Cardiovascular Diseases , Dietary Supplements , Minerals , Neoplasms , Vitamins , Adult , Humans , Advisory Committees , beta Carotene/adverse effects , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Dietary Supplements/adverse effects , Mass Screening , Minerals/adverse effects , Minerals/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Nutrition Surveys , Risk Assessment , Vitamin E/adverse effects , Vitamins/adverse effects , Vitamins/therapeutic use
15.
JAMA ; 327(20): 1992-1997, 2022 05 24.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35608574

Importance: Glaucoma affects an estimated 2.7 million people in the US. It is the second-leading cause of irreversible blindness in the US and the leading cause of blindness in Black and Hispanic/Latino persons. Objective: To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for glaucoma in adults. Population: Adults 40 years or older who present in primary care and do not have signs or symptoms of open-angle glaucoma. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for glaucoma in adults. The benefits and harms of screening for glaucoma in adults are uncertain. More research is needed. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma in adults. (I statement).


Glaucoma, Open-Angle , Mass Screening , Adult , Advisory Committees , Blindness , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/diagnosis , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/therapy , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Preventive Health Services , Risk Assessment , United States
16.
JAMA ; 327(21): 2123-2128, 2022 06 07.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35608838

Importance: Impairment of visual acuity is a serious public health problem in older adults. The number of persons 60 years or older with impaired visual acuity (defined as best corrected visual acuity worse than 20/40 but better than 20/200) was estimated at 2.91 million in 2015, and the number who are blind (defined as best corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse) was estimated at 760 000. Impaired visual acuity is consistently associated with decreased quality of life in older persons, including reduced ability to perform activities of daily living, work, and drive safely, as well as increased risk of falls and other unintentional injuries. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults 65 years or older who present in primary care without known impaired visual acuity and are not seeking care for vision problems. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in asymptomatic older adults. The evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. (I statement).


Vision Disorders , Vision Screening , Activities of Daily Living , Advisory Committees , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Primary Health Care/methods , Quality of Life , Risk Assessment , Vision Disorders/diagnosis , Vision Disorders/etiology , Vision Disorders/therapy , Vision Screening/methods , Visual Acuity
17.
JAMA ; 327(18): 1806-1811, 2022 05 10.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35536260

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an irreversible reduction of airflow in the lungs. Progression to severe disease can prevent participation in normal activities because of deterioration of lung function. In 2020 it was estimated that approximately 6% of US adults had been diagnosed with COPD. Chronic lower respiratory disease, composed mainly of COPD, is the sixth leading cause of death in the US. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update that focused on targeted key questions for benefits and harms of screening for COPD in asymptomatic adults and treatment in screen-detected or screen-relevant adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults who do not recognize or report respiratory symptoms. Evidence Assessment: Using a reaffirmation process, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for COPD in asymptomatic adults has no net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for COPD in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).


Mass Screening , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive , Adult , Advisory Committees , Humans , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/diagnosis , Risk Assessment , United States
18.
JAMA ; 327(16): 1577-1584, 2022 04 26.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35471505

Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in the US, accounting for more than 1 in 4 deaths. Each year, an estimated 605 000 people in the US have a first myocardial infarction and an estimated 610 000 experience a first stroke. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD. The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms (particularly bleeding) associated with aspirin use. The USPSTF also commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Population: Adults 40 years or older without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD (including history of myocardial infarction or stroke) who are not at increased risk for bleeding (eg, no history of gastrointestinal ulcers, recent bleeding, other medical conditions, or use of medications that increase bleeding risk). Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults 60 years or older has no net benefit. Recommendation: The decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk should be an individual one. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use in this group is small. Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older. (D recommendation).


Aspirin , Cardiovascular Diseases , Adult , Aspirin/adverse effects , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Computer Simulation , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/drug therapy , Myocardial Infarction/prevention & control , Primary Prevention , Risk Assessment , Stroke/drug therapy , Stroke/prevention & control
19.
JAMA ; 327(11): 1061-1067, 2022 03 15.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35289876

Importance: Eating disorders (eg, binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) are a group of psychiatric conditions defined as a disturbance in eating or eating-related behaviors that impair physical or psychosocial functioning. According to large US cohort studies, estimated lifetime prevalences for anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder in adult women are 1.42%, 0.46%, and 1.25%, respectively, and are lower in adult men (anorexia nervosa, 0.12%; bulimia nervosa, 0.08%; binge eating disorder, 0.42%). Eating disorder prevalence ranges from 0.3% to 2.3% in adolescent females and 0.3% to 1.3% in adolescent males. Eating disorders are associated with short-term and long-term adverse health outcomes, including physical, psychological, and social problems. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults with a normal or high body mass index. Evidence limited to populations who are underweight or have other physical signs or symptoms of eating disorders was not considered. The USPSTF has not previously made a recommendation on this topic. Population: Adolescents and adults (10 years or older) who have no signs or symptoms of eating disorders (eg, rapid weight loss, weight gain, or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea). Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults. The evidence is limited and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults. (I statement).


Feeding and Eating Disorders/diagnosis , Feeding and Eating Disorders/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening
20.
JAMA ; 327(12): 1171-1176, 2022 Mar 22.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35315879

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) works to improve the health of people nationwide by making evidence-based recommendations for preventive services. Patient-centered care is a core value in US health care. Shared decision-making (SDM), in which patients and clinicians make health decisions together, ensures patients' rights to be informed and involved in preventive care decisions and that these decisions are patient-centered. SDM has a role across the spectrum of USPSTF recommendations. For A or B recommendations (judged by the USPSTF to have high or moderate certainty of a moderate or substantial net benefit at the population level), SDM allows individual patients to decide whether to accept such services based on their personal values and preferences. For C recommendations (indicating at least moderate certainty of a small net benefit at the population level), SDM is critical for individual patients to decide whether the net benefit for them is worthwhile. For D recommendations (reflecting at least moderate certainty of a zero or negative net benefit) or I statements (low certainty of net benefit), clinicians should be prepared to discuss these services if patients ask. More evidence is needed to determine if, in addition to promoting patient-centeredness, SDM reduces inequities in preventive care, as well as to define new strategies to find time for discussion of preventive services in primary care.


Decision Making, Shared , Preventive Health Services , Humans
...