Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus. DISCUSSION: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378858.

Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are a major health concern for older adults and can result in disability, admission to hospital and long-term care, and reduced quality of life. This Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on screening to prevent fragility fractures in community-dwelling individuals aged 40 years and older who are not currently on preventive pharmacotherapy. METHODS: We commissioned systematic reviews on benefits and harms of screening, predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools, patient acceptability and benefits of treatment. We analyzed treatment harms via a rapid overview of reviews. We further examined patient values and preferences via focus groups and engaged stakeholders at key points throughout the project. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome and strength of recommendations, and adhered to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), Guidelines International Network and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) reporting guidance. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend "risk assessment-first" screening for prevention of fragility fractures in females aged 65 years and older, with initial application of the Canadian clinical Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD). The FRAX result should be used to facilitate shared decision-making about the possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy. After this discussion, if preventive pharmacotherapy is being considered, clinicians should request BMD measurement using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the femoral neck, and re-estimate fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into FRAX (conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence). We recommend against screening females aged 40-64 years and males aged 40 years and older (strong recommendation, very low-certainty evidence). These recommendations apply to community-dwelling individuals who are not currently on pharmacotherapy to prevent fragility fractures. INTERPRETATION: Risk assessment-first screening for females aged 65 years and older facilitates shared decision-making and allows patients to consider preventive pharmacotherapy within their individual risk context (before BMD). Recommendations against screening males and younger females emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at higher risk of fragility fracture.

Recommandations sur le dépistage pour la prévention primaire des fractures de fragilisation.

CONTEXTE: Les fractures de fragilisation sont un important problème de santé chez les adultes âgés et peuvent entraîner des incapacités, des hospitalisations et le placement en établissement de soins de longue durée, en plus de nuire à la qualité de vie. La présente ligne directrice du Groupe d'étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs (le Groupe d'étude) formule des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes au sujet du dépistage pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation chez les personnes âgées de 40 ans et plus vivant dans la collectivité qui ne sont pas sous traitement pharmacologique préventif. MÉTHODES: Nous avons commandé des revues systématiques sur les bénéfices et les préjudices du dépistage, l'exactitude prédictive des outils d'évaluation du risque, les bénéfices du traitement, ainsi que l'acceptabilité de celui-ci par les patients. Nous avons analysé les préjudices des traitements au moyen d'un examen rapide de revues systématiques. Nous avons en outre analysé les valeurs et les préférences des patients par l'entremise de groupes de discussion et auprès d'intervenants mobilisés à certains moments clés, tout au long du projet. Nous avons utilisé l'approche méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) afin de déterminer la certitude des données probantes pour chacune des issues cliniques ainsi que la force des recommandations, et nous avons appliqué les lignes directrices de l'instrument AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation), du Guidelines International Network (GIN) et du guide de rédaction Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP 2). RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous recommandons un dépistage débutant par une estimation du risque pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus. Le dépistage se fait d'abord au moyen de l'outil canadien FRAX, qui mesure le risque de fracture, sans densité minérale osseuse (DMO). Le score FRAX devrait guider la prise de décision partagée entourant les bénéfices et les préjudices potentiels de la pharmacothérapie préventive. Après cette discussion, si une pharmacothérapie préventive est envisagée, les médecins devraient demander une mesure de la DMO par absorptiométrie à rayons X biphotonique (DEXA) du col du fémur, puis réévaluer le risque de fracture en intégrant le score T de la DMO au score FRAX (recommandation conditionnelle, données de faible certitude). Nous ne recommandons pas le dépistage chez les femmes de 40­64 ans et les hommes de 40 ans et plus (recommandation forte, données de très faible certitude). Ces recommandations s'appliquent aux personnes vivant dans la collectivité qui ne sont pas sous pharmacothérapie pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation. INTERPRÉTATION: Le dépistage débutant par une estimation du risque chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus facilite la prise de décision partagée et permet aux patientes d'envisager la pharmacothérapie préventive en fonction de leur propre risque (avant DMO). Le fait de ne pas recommander le dépistage chez les hommes et les femmes plus jeunes rappelle l'importance des bonnes pratiques cliniques, en vertu desquelles les médecins doivent demeurer à l'affût de tout changement de l'état de santé des personnes qui pourrait indiquer qu'elles ont subi une fracture de fragilisation ou pourraient y être plus sujettes.

Clinical public health: harnessing the best of both worlds in sickness and in health. / Santé publique clinique : exploiter le meilleur des deux mondes pour la santé comme pour le traitement des maladies.

INTRODUCTION: Effective, sustained collaboration between clinical and public health professionals can lead to improved individual and population health. The concept of clinical public health promotes collaboration between clinical medicine and public health to address complex, real-world health challenges. In this commentary, we describe the concept of clinical public health, the types of complex problems that require collaboration between individual and population health, and the barriers towards and applications of clinical public health that have become evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE: The focus of clinical medicine on the health of individuals and the aims of public health to promote and protect the health of populations are complementary. Interdisciplinary collaborations at both levels of health interventions are needed to address complex health problems. However, there is a need to address the disciplinary, cultural and financial barriers to achieving greater and sustained collaboration. Recent successes, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, provide a model for such collaboration between clinicians and public health practitioners. CONCLUSION: A public health approach that fosters ongoing collaboration between clinical and public health professionals in the face of complex health threats will have greater impact than the sum of the parts.

INTRODUCTION: Une collaboration efficace et soutenue entre cliniciens et professionnels en santé publique peut améliorer la santé des individus et la santé de la population. Le concept de santé publique clinique favorise cette collaboration entre médecine clinique et santé publique et permet de relever des défis complexes en matière de santé. Dans ce commentaire, nous décrivons le concept de santé publique clinique, les types de problèmes complexes qui nécessitent une collaboration entre les professionnels responsables de la santé des individus et ceux responsables de la santé de la population, de même que les obstacles à la santé publique clinique et les applications de la santé publique clinique qui ont émergé pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. ARGUMENTAIRE: Il existe une complémentarité entre la médecine clinique, qui est axée sur la santé des individus, et la santé publique, qui est axée sur la promotion et la protection de la santé des populations. Une collaboration entre ces deux disciplines est nécessaire pour résoudre les problèmes de santé complexes. Pour ce faire, toutefois, il convient de s'attaquer aux obstacles relatifs aux disciplines, ainsi qu'aux obstacles culturels et financiers qui empêchent une collaboration accrue et durable en la matière. Les succès récents, particulièrement durant la pandémie de COVID-19, constituent un modèle de collaboration de ce type entre cliniciens et praticiens en santé publique. CONCLUSION: Une approche en matière de santé publique qui favorise une collaboration permanente entre cliniciens et professionnels en santé publique pour lutter contre des menaces sanitaires complexes aura plus d'impact que la somme de ses parties.

Defining Clinical Public Health.

PURPOSE: To solve complex health issues, an innovative and multidisciplinary framework is necessary. The Clinical Public Health (CPH) Division was established at the University of Toronto (UofT), Canada to foster inte-gration of primary care, preventive medicine and public health in education, practice and research. To better understand how the construct of CPH might be applied, we surveyed clinicians, researchers and public health professionals affiliated with the CPH Division to assess their understanding of the CPH concept and its utility in fostering broad collaboration. METHODS: A two-wave anonymous survey of the active faculty of the CPH Division, UofT was conducted across Canada. Wave 1 participants (n = 187; 2016) were asked to define CPH, while Wave 2 participants (n = 192; 2017) were provided a synthesis of Wave 1 results and asked to rank each definition. Both waves were asked about the need for a common definition, and to comment on CPH. RESULTS: Response rates for the first and second waves were 25% and 22%, respectively. Of the six definitions of CPH from Wave 1, "the intersection of clinical practice and public health," was most highly ranked by Wave 2 participants. Positive perceptions of CPH included multidisciplinary collaboration, new fields and insights, forward thinking and innovation. Negative perceptions included CPH being a confusing term, too narrow in scope or too clinical. CONCLUSION: The concept of Clinical Public Health can foster multidisciplinary collaboration to address com-plex health issues because it provides a useful framework for bringing together key disciplines and diverse professional specialties.

Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of cancer, preventable death, and disability. Smoking cessation can increase life expectancy by nearly a decade if achieved in the third or fourth decades of life. Various stop smoking interventions are available including pharmacotherapies, electronic cigarettes, behavioural support, and alternative therapies. This protocol outlines an evidence review which will evaluate the benefits and harms of stop smoking interventions in adults. METHODS: The evidence review will consist of two stages. First, an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions delivered in or referred from the primary care setting will be conducted. The second stage will involve updating a systematic review on electronic cigarettes identified in the overview; randomized controlled trials will be considered for outcomes relating to benefits while randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and comparative observational studies will be considered for evaluating harms. Search strategies will be developed and peer-reviewed by medical information specialists. The search strategy for the updated review on e-cigarettes will be developed using that of the candidate systematic review. The MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases will be searched as of 2008 for the overview of reviews and from the last search date of the selected review for the updated review. Organizational websites and trial registries will be searched for unpublished or ongoing reviews/studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements regarding full-text screening and data extraction will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. The methodological quality of systematic reviews, risk of bias of randomized and non-randomized trials, and methodological quality of cohort studies will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool, respectively. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The evidence review will evaluate the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions for adults. Findings will be used to inform a national tobacco cessation guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099691, CRD42018099692).

Safety and immunogenicity of two doses of quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine or one dose of meningococcal group C conjugate vaccine, both administered concomitantly with routine immunization to 12- to 18-month-old children.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the immunogenicity and safety of a two-dose series of a quadrivalent meningococcal (serogroups A, C, Y and W) polysaccharide diphtheria toxoid conjugate vaccine (MenACYW-D) administered to toddlers. METHODS: Children were randomly assigned (1:1) at study entry to receive MenACYW-D at 12 and 18 months of age (group 1; n=61) or meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine (MCC) at 12 months of age (group 2; n=62). All received routine childhood immunizations. A, C, Y and W antibody titres were measured in group 1 before and one month after the 18-month MenACYW-D vaccination and were measured in group 2 at one and seven months post-MCC vaccination. Antibodies elicited by diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, and acellular pertussis vaccine adsorbed combined with inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine and Haemophilus influenzae b conjugate (DTaP-IPV-Hib) vaccine coadministered at the 18-month vaccination were measured one month later. Safety data were collected. RESULTS: At 19 months of age, ≥96% in group 1 achieved protective titres for the four meningococcal serogroups after dose 2; 67% in group 2 exhibited protective titres against serogroup C 28 days after MCC vaccination at 12 months of age, declining to 27% seven months later. DTaP-IPV-Hib elicited high antibody concentrations/titres in groups 1 and 2, consistent with historical values. The safety profiles after each dose generated no unexpected safety signals; no serious adverse events were related to vaccination. DISCUSSION: A two-dose series of MenACYW-D given concomitantly with a DTaP-IPV-Hib booster dose at 18 months of age demonstrated a good immunogenicity and safety profile. A two-dose series of MenACYW-D can be used as an alternative to one dose of MCC and provides protection against additional serogroups (NCT ID: NCT01359449).

OBJECTIFS: Décrire l'immunogénicité et l'innocuité d'une série de deux doses du vaccin polysaccharadique conjugué quadrivalent contre le méningocoque (des sérogroupes A, C, Y et W) et l'anatoxine diphtérique (Men-ACYW-D) administrée aux tout-petits. MÉTHODOLOGIE: En début d'étude, les enfants ont été répartis au hasard (1:1) entre l'administration du vaccin Men-ACYW-D à 12 et 18 mois (groupe 1; n=61) ou du vaccin conjugué contre le méningocoque de sérogroupe C (Men-C-C) à 12 mois (groupe 2; n=62). Tous ont reçu les vaccins systématiques pour les enfants. Les chercheurs ont mesuré les titres d'anticorps A, C, Y et W dans le groupe 1 avant et un mois après l'administration du vaccin Men-ACYW-D à 18 mois et dans le groupe 2 un et sept mois après l'administration du vaccin Men-C-C. Un mois plus tard, ils ont mesuré les anticorps induits par les anatoxines diphtérique et tétanique et par le vaccin adsorbé contre la coqueluche acellulaire combiné au vaccin inactivé contre la poliomyélite et au vaccin conjugué contre l'Haemophilus influenzae de type b (DCaT-VPI- Hib) coadministrés lors du vaccin de 18 mois. Ils ont colligé des données d'innocuité. RÉSULTATS: À 19 mois, au moins 96 % des enfants du groupe 1 avaient des titres protecteurs contre les quatre sérogroupes du méningocoque après la dose 2, tandis que 67 % de ceux du groupe 2 présentaient des titres protecteurs contre le sérogroupe C 28 jours après le vaccin Men-C-C à 12 mois, reculant à 27 % sept mois plus tard. Le vaccin DCaT-VPI-Hib conférait de fortes concentrations et titres d'anticorps dans les groupes 1 et 2, conformément aux valeurs antérieures. Les profils d'innocuité après chaque dose ne s'associaient à aucun signe d'innocuité inattendu, et aucun événement indésirable grave n'était lié à la vaccination. EXPOSÉ: Une série de deux doses du vaccin Men-ACYW-D administrée en même temps que la dose de rappel du DCaT-VPI-Hib à 18 mois présente un bon profil d'immunogénicité et d'innocuité. Elle peut remplacer une dose du vaccin Men-C-C et conférer une protection contre des sérogroupes supplémentaires (ID NCT : NCT01359449).

Fully liquid DTaP-IPV-Hib pediatric combination vaccine (Pediacel): a review of 18 years of clinical experience.

Safe and effective combination pediatric vaccines are necessary to simplify complex immunization schedules and to improve coverage and protection for children worldwide. We provide an overview of the 18 years of clinical and worldwide experience with DTaP-IPV-Hib (Pediacel(®)), a unique fully liquid pentavalent vaccine (diphtheria [D], tetanus [T], acellular pertussis, inactivated poliovirus [IPV], Haemophilus influenzae type b [Hib]). Pediacel has demonstrated good and lasting immunogenicity in many populations, with differing primary series and booster schedules, and with a variety of coadministered vaccines. The acellular pertussis antigens have proven efficacy and real-world effectiveness. Clinical and post-marketing studies confirm the safety of Pediacel. Pediacel can be used for primary series and toddler booster doses, as well as in mixed pediatric vaccine schedules.

Incidence of neural tube defects in Ontario, 1986-1999.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal screening and the promotion of folic acid intake could affect the incidence of neural tube defects (NTDs). We examined trends in the total NTD incidence, as detected in live births, stillbirths and therapeutic abortions, from 1986 to 1999 in Ontario. METHODS: To capture cases of NTDs we used data from the Canadian Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System and hospital data on therapeutic abortions. We calculated the total incidence of NTDs by combining the numbers of NTDs occurring in live births, stillbirths and therapeutic abortions. RESULTS: The total NTD incidence rate increased from 11.7 per 10,000 pregnancies in 1986 to 16.2 per 10,000 in 1995, and it subsequently decreased to 8.6 per 10,000 by 1999. The NTD birth rate (live births and stillbirths) decreased from 10.6 per 10,000 births in 1986 to 5.3 per 10,000 in 1999. The rate of therapeutic abortions with an NTD or hydrocephalus rose from 17.5 per 10,000 abortions in 1986 to 50.7 per 10,000 in 1995 and fell to 28.7 per 10,000 abortions in 1999. INTERPRETATION: The total NTD incidence rate increased from 1986 to 1995, probably because of increased prenatal screening and better detection of NTDs. The decline from 1995 to 1999 may have been due to increased folic acid intake among women at the time of conception.