Implementation lessons learned from the University of California's Diabetes Prevention Program Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The University of California's Diabetes Prevention Program (UC DPP) Initiative was implemented systemwide to address diabetes and obesity risk on all 10 campuses. As little is known about implementing lifestyle change programs in university settings, we examined implementation partners' (i.e., UC DPP leaders and campus leads) perceptions of factors influencing program success on UC campuses. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with UC DPP leaders and campus leads to examine challenges and opportunities with university-based DPP delivery models. Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed, and reviewed in detail by the research team. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis (RQA). The study was approved by the UCLA Institutional Review Board. All implementation partners provided verbal informed consent. RESULTS: Twenty-six implementation partners (8 UC DPP leaders and 18 campus leads) completed interviews in 2021. Seven themes were identified as critical for implementation, including (1) marketing and recruitment (i.e., market and recruit broadly through established channels as well as target at-risk populations); (2) enrollment (i.e., offer the program during convenient times and let participants know what to expect); (3) use an adaptable, evidence-based program; (4) secure funding for the program, participants, lifestyle coaches, and space; (5) hire experienced and dedicated staff and lifestyle coaches; (6) ensure leadership support; and (7) utilize campus linkages and resources. Perceptions of challenges faced with respect to these themes are also described. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to examine the challenges and opportunities of delivering an intensive lifestyle change program across 10 university sites. Understanding factors that enhance success of university-based diabetes prevention programs can facilitate UC DPP efforts and help inform delivery strategies of health and wellness programs across other university settings more broadly.

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate. Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review. Population: Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Speech and language delays and disorders can pose significant problems for children and their families. Evidence suggests that school-aged children with speech or language delays may be at increased risk of learning and literacy disabilities, including difficulties with reading and writing. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger. Population: Asymptomatic children 5 years or younger whose parents or clinicians do not have specific concerns about their speech, language, hearing, or development. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children who do not present with signs or symptoms or parent/caregiver concerns. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger without signs or symptoms. (I statement).

Exploring the Relationship Between Medication Adherence and Diabetes Disparities among Hispanic Patients in a Large Health System.

BACKGROUND: Sub-optimal HbA1c control is a driver of disparities in diabetes outcomes among Hispanic patients. Differences in medication adherence may underlie racial/ethnic differences in HbA1c level. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between medication adherence and disparities in HbA1c level among Hispanic patients, relative to other racial/ethnic groups, obtaining care in the University of California Health System (UC Health). DESIGN: This study used clinical, administrative, and prescription dispensing data (January-December 2021) derived from the electronic health records of 5 Academic Medical Centers in UC Health, and linear regression models (LRMs) to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between medication adherence, race/ethnicity, and HbA1c level. Adjusted LRMs were run with and without the measure of medication adherence to assess this relationship. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a UC Health primary care physician (PCP), with ≥ 1 PCP visit within the last 3 years, ages 18-75, reporting Asian, Hispanic, or White race/ethnicity, and who had ≥ 2 encounters with an ICD diagnosis of diabetes or had a prescription for a diabetes medication within the last 2 years, as of 12/31/21 (N = 27, 542; Asian = 6253, Hispanic = 7216, White = 14,073). MAIN MEASURES: Our measure of medication adherence was the proportion of days covered (PDC) for diabetes medications in 2021. Our outcome was the most recent HbA1c value. KEY RESULTS: In the LRM excluding the PDC, Hispanic ethnicity was positively associated with HbA1c level (ß = 0.31, p = < 0.001). In the LRM model including PDC, PDC was negatively associated with HbA1c level (ß = - 0.18, p = < 0.001). However, the positive relationship between Hispanic ethnicity and HbA1c level did not change (ß = 0.31, p = < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that the relationship between Hispanic ethnicity, HbA1c level, and factors outside of medication adherence should be explored among primary care patients receiving care in Academic Medical Centers.

The Diabetes Health Plan and Healthcare Utilization Among Beneficiaries with Low Incomes.

BACKGROUND: The socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in hospital and emergency room utilization among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is partially driven by cost-related non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of the Diabetes Health Plan (DHP), a diabetes-specific health plan incorporating value-based insurance design principles on healthcare utilization among low-income adults with T2DM. DESIGN: To examine the impact of the DHP on healthcare utilization, we employed a difference-in-differences (DID) study design with a propensity-matched comparison group. We modeled count and dichotomous outcomes using Poisson and logit models, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort of adults (18-64) with T2DM, with an annual household income <$ 30,000, and who were continuously enrolled in an employer-sponsored UnitedHealthcare plan for at least 2 years between 2009 and 2014. INTERVENTIONS: The DHP reduces or eliminates out-of-pocket costs for disease management visits, diabetes-related medicines, and diabetes self-monitoring supplies. The DHP also provides access to diabetes-specific telephone case management as well as other online resources. MAIN MEASURES: Number of disease management visits (N = 1732), any emergency room utilization (N = 1758), and any hospitalization (N = 1733), within the year. KEY RESULTS: DID models predicting disease management visits suggested that DHP-exposed beneficiaries had 1.7 fewer in-person disease management visits per year (- 1.70 [95% CI: - 2.19, - 1.20], p < 0.001), on average, than comparison beneficiaries. Models for emergency room (0.00 [95% CI: - 0.06, 0.06], p = 0.966) and hospital utilization (- 0.03 [95% CI: - 0.08, - 0.01], p = 0.164) did not demonstrate statistically significant changes associated with DHP exposure. CONCLUSIONS: While no relationship between DHP exposure and high-cost utilization was observed in the short term, fewer in-person disease management visits were observed. Future studies are needed to determine the clinical implications of these findings.

Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body that makes evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive services to improve health for people nationwide. Here, we summarize current USPSTF methods, describe how methods are evolving to address preventive health equity, and define evidence gaps for future research. METHODS: We summarize current USPSTF methods as well as ongoing methods development. RESULTS: The USPSTF prioritizes topics on the basis of disease burden, extent of new evidence, and whether the service can be provided in primary care and going forward will increasingly consider health equity. Analytic frameworks specify the key questions and linkages connecting the preventive service to health outcomes. Contextual questions provide information on natural history, current practice, health outcomes in high-risk groups, and health equity. The USPSTF assigns a level of certainty to the estimate of net benefit of a preventive service (high, moderate, or low). The magnitude of net benefit is also judged (substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative). The USPSTF uses these assessments to assign a letter grade from A (recommend) to D (recommend against). I statements are issued when evidence is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF will continue to evolve its methods for simulation modeling and to use evidence to address conditions for which there are limited data for population groups who bear a disproportionate burden of disease. Additional pilot work is underway to better understand the relations of the social constructs of race, ethnicity, and gender with health outcomes to inform the development of a USPSTF health equity framework.

How Would You Screen This Patient for Colorectal Cancer? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States, with an estimated 52 580 people expected to die in 2022. Most frequently, CRC is diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. However, among persons younger than 50 years, incidence rates have been increasing since the mid-1990s. In 2021, partially because of the rising incidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screening for adults aged 45 to 49 years (Grade B recommendation). Options for CRC screening include stool-based and direct visualization tests. The USPSTF did not recommend a specific screening test; rather, its guidance was to select a test after a discussion with the patient. Here, a primary care physician and a gastroenterologist discuss the recommendation to begin CRC screening at age 45, review options for CRC screening, and discuss how to choose among the available options.

"Positive Kidney Health": Implementation and design of a pharmacist-led intervention for patients at risk for development or progression of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with early chronic kidney disease (CKD) or underlying risk factors are often unaware of their kidney test results, common causes of CKD, and ways to lower risk of disease onset/progression. OBJECTIVE: To test feasibility of a pharmacist-led intervention targeting patient education and risk factors in patients with early CKD and those at risk for CKD. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Ambulatory care pharmacists in community-based primary care clinics delivered kidney health education, ordered labs, and recommended medication adjustments. PRACTICE INNOVATION: We identified patients with a moderate rate of decline (≥2 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year) in estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) at-risk for CKD or early stage CKD. An interactive workbook was designed to teach patients about kidney test results and self-management of risk factors including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cigarette smoking, and chronic oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. EVALUATION METHODS: Outcomes included visit uptake, completion of annual albuminuria screening, and initiation of guideline-directed medications for CKD. Patients were surveyed pre- and post-intervention for kidney health knowledge and perceptions regarding pharmacist-provided information. RESULTS: Our sample of 20 participants had a mean eGFR of 59 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the mean eGFR decline was -4.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year. There were 47 visits during the pilot period from February 2021 to October 2021. Thirteen patients were missing albuminuria screening within 12 months; 2 of 9 patients with resulting labs had new microalbuminuria and were started on renoprotective medications. Patients had improved understanding of their kidney function test results and most did not consider the information scary or confusing. CONCLUSION: Barriers to enrollment included fewer participants with multiple risk factors for CKD. The pharmacists were able to engage patients in learning the importance of monitoring and self-management of kidney health. A collaborative practice agreement may enhance a similar intervention that includes initiation of renoprotective medications.

Serologic Screening for Genital Herpes Infection: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement.

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).

Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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).

Screening for Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: In the US, tuberculosis remains an important preventable disease, including active tuberculosis, which may be infectious, and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), which is asymptomatic and not infectious but can later progress to active disease. The precise prevalence rate of LTBI in the US is difficult to determine; however, estimated prevalence is about 5.0%, or up to 13 million persons. Incidence of tuberculosis varies by geography and living accommodations, suggesting an association with social determinants of health. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on LTBI screening and treatment in asymptomatic adults seen in primary care, as well as the accuracy of LTBI screening tests. Population: Asymptomatic adults 18 years or older at increased risk for tuberculosis. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit in preventing active tuberculosis disease by screening for LTBI in persons at increased risk for tuberculosis infection. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for LTBI in populations at increased risk. (B recommendation).

Differences in Weight Loss by Race and Ethnicity in the PRIDE Trial: a Qualitative Analysis of Participant Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Many Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) translation efforts have been less effective for underresourced populations. In the cluster-randomized Prediabetes Informed Decision and Education (PRIDE) trial, which evaluated a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for diabetes prevention, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants lost less weight than non-Hispanic White participants at 12-month follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To explore perspectives about weight loss from PRIDE participants of different racial and ethnic groups. PARTICIPANTS: Sample of participants with prediabetes who were randomized to the PRIDE intervention arm (n=24). APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews within three groups stratified by DPP participation and % weight loss at 12 months: (DPP+/WL+, enrolled in DPP and lost >5% weight; DPP+/WL-, enrolled in DPP and lost <3% weight; DPP-/WL-, did not enroll in DPP and lost <3% weight). Each group was further subdivided on race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black (NHB), non-Hispanic White (NHW), Hispanic). Interviews were conducted on Zoom and transcripts were coded and analyzed with Dedoose. KEY RESULTS: Compared to NHW participants, Hispanic and NHB participants more often endorsed weight loss barriers of limited time to make lifestyle changes due to long work and commute hours, inconvenient DPP class locations and offerings, and limited disposable income for extra weight loss activities. Conversely, facilitators of weight loss regardless of race and ethnicity included retirement or having flexible work schedules; being able to identify convenient DPP classes; having a strong, positive support system; and purchasing supplementary resources to support lifestyle change (e.g., gym memberships, one-on-one activity classes). CONCLUSIONS: We found that NHB and Hispanic SDM participants report certain barriers to weight loss more commonly than NHW participants, particularly barriers related to limited disposable income and/or time constraints. Our findings suggest that increased lifestyle change support and flexible program delivery options may be needed to ensure equity in DPP reach, participant engagement, and outcomes.

Evaluating Natural Experiments that Impact the Diabetes Epidemic: an Introduction to the NEXT-D3 Network.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is an ongoing public health issue in the USA, and, despite progress, recent reports suggest acute and chronic diabetes complications are increasing. RECENT FINDINGS: The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 3.0 (NEXT-D3) Network is a 5-year research collaboration involving six academic centers (Harvard University, Northwestern University, Oregon Health & Science University, Tulane University, University of California Los Angeles, and University of California San Francisco) and two funding agencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health) to address the gaps leading to persisting diabetes burdens. The network builds on previously funded networks, expanding to include type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention and an emphasis on health equity. NEXT-D3 researchers use rigorous natural experiment study designs to evaluate impacts of naturally occurring programs and policies, with a focus on diabetes-related outcomes. NEXT-D3 projects address whether and to what extent federal or state legislative policies and health plan innovations affect T2D risk and diabetes treatment and outcomes in the USA; real-world effects of increased access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act; and the effectiveness of interventions that reduce barriers to medication access (e.g., decreased or eliminated cost sharing for cardiometabolic medications and new medications such as SGLT-2 inhibitors for Medicaid patients). Overarching goals include (1) expanding generalizable knowledge about policies and programs to manage or prevent T2D and educate decision-makers and organizations and (2) generating evidence to guide the development of health equity goals to reduce disparities in T2D-related risk factors, treatment, and complications.

Preventing opioid use disorder and misuse in asymptomatic primary care patients: A call for relevant primary prevention intervention research.

To contribute to the national effort to combat the opioid crisis, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a scoping review to describe the state of evidence for the primary prevention of opioid misuse or use disorder in persons not yet prescribed opioids or not yet misusing opioids. (Patnode et al., 2021) As found by the scoping review, sparse direct evidence focusing on primary care-relevant prevention interventions exists. The purpose of the current commentary is to describe the relevant research needed to effectively inform primary care providers and patients about how to reduce the risk for future opioid use disorder and opioid misuse and improve health outcomes in those not yet exposed to or misusing opioid medications.

Association of Type 2 Diabetes Risk Perception With Interest in Diabetes Prevention Strategies Among Women With a History of Gestational Diabetes.

Objectives: The aims of this study were to identify predictors of perception of type 2 diabetes risk in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to determine factors associated with interest in evidence-based strategies for type 2 diabetes prevention. Research Design and Methods: We surveyed women with a history of GDM who had not progressed to type 2 diabetes from a large academic medical center. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess predictors of high levels of perception of type 2 diabetes risk. We also tested associations between risk perception and interest in a lifestyle change program and/or metformin therapy. Results: In our diverse sample of 264 women, 28% were unaware that GDM is a risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes after pregnancy, and 48% believed their personal risk of type 2 diabetes was low. In multivariate analyses, family history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.4) and knowledge of GDM as a risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.1-9.8) were significant predictors of greater perception of type 2 diabetes risk. Women with higher risk perception were more likely to express interest in a lifestyle change program compared with women with lower risk perception (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.5). Conclusion: Although some women are aware that GDM is a risk factor for incident type 2 diabetes, many still perceive their own risk of developing type 2 diabetes as low. Higher risk perception predicted interest in an evidence-based diabetes prevention program, highlighting the importance of personalized risk assessment and communication about risk for women who have had GDM.

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. The prevalence of AF increases with age, from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, with a higher prevalence in men than in women. It is uncertain whether the prevalence of AF differs by race and ethnicity. Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke and is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of stroke. Approximately 20% of patients who have a stroke associated with AF are first diagnosed with AF at the time of the stroke or shortly thereafter. Objective: To update its 2018 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for AF in older adults, the accuracy of screening tests, the effectiveness of screening tests to detect previously undiagnosed AF compared with usual care, and the benefits and harms of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of screen-detected AF in older adults. Population: Adults 50 years or older without a diagnosis or symptoms of AF and without a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF. (I statement).

Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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).

Hormone Therapy for the Primary Prevention of Chronic Conditions in Postmenopausal Persons: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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).

Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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).

Screening for Depression and Suicide Risk in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

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).