Preoperative proteinuria is independently associated with mortality after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has become a mainstay in treating complex aortic aneurysms, though baseline patient factors predicting long-term outcomes remain poorly understood. Proteinuria is an early marker for chronic kidney disease and associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but its utility in patients with aortic aneurysms is unknown. We aimed to determine whether preoperative proteinuria impacts long-term survival after FEVAR. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review of all elective FEVAR was performed. Preoperative proteinuria was assessed by urinalysis: negative (0-29 mg/dL), 1+ (30-100 mg/dL), 2+ (101-299 mg/dL), and 3+ (≥300 mg/dL). The cohort was stratified by patients with proteinuria (≥30 mg/dL) vs those without (<30 mg/dL). Baseline, perioperative, and long-term outcomes were compared. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and independent predictors with Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Among 181 patients who underwent standard FEVAR from 2012 to 2022 (mean follow-up 33 months), any proteinuria was noted in 30 patients (16.6%). Patients with proteinuria were more likely to be Black (10.0% vs 1.3%) with a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (52.7 ± 24.7 vs 67.7 ± 20.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), higher Society for Vascular Surgery comorbidity score (10.9 ± 4.3 vs 8.2 ± 4.7) and calcium channel blocker therapy (50.0% vs 29.1%), and larger maximal aneurysm diameter (67.2 ± 16.9 vs 59.8 ± 9.8 mm) (all P < .05). Thirty-day mortality was higher in the proteinuria group (10.0% vs 1.3%; P = .03). Overall survival at 1 and 5 years was significantly lower for those with proteinuria (71.5% vs 92.3% and 29.5% vs 68.1%; log-rank P < .001). On multivariable analysis, preoperative proteinuria was independently associated with over threefold higher hazard of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66-6.20; P < .001), whereas preoperative eGFR was not predictive (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.01; P = .28). Additional significant predictors included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR: 2.04), older age (HR: 1.05), and larger maximal aneurysm diameter (HR: 1.03; all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In our 10-year experience with FEVAR, preoperative proteinuria was observed in 17% of patients and was significantly associated with worse survival. In this cohort, proteinuria was independently associated with all-cause mortality, whereas eGFR was not, suggesting that urinalysis may provide an additional simple metric for risk-stratifying patients before FEVAR.

Population-Wide Screening for Chronic Kidney Disease : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have the potential to alter the natural history of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and they should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses of screening for CKD. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding population-wide screening for CKD. DESIGN: Markov cohort model. DATA SOURCES: NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data, cohort studies, and randomized clinical trials, including the DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) trial. TARGET POPULATION: Adults. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Screening for albuminuria with and without adding SGLT2 inhibitors to the current standard of care for CKD. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), all discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: One-time CKD screening at age 55 years had an ICER of $86 300 per QALY gained by increasing costs from $249 800 to $259 000 and increasing QALYs from 12.61 to 12.72; this was accompanied by a decrease in the incidence of kidney failure requiring dialysis or kidney transplant of 0.29 percentage points and an increase in life expectancy from 17.29 to 17.45 years. Other options were also cost-effective. During ages 35 to 75 years, screening once prevented dialysis or transplant in 398 000 people and screening every 10 years until age 75 years cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: When SGLT2 inhibitors were 30% less effective, screening every 10 years during ages 35 to 75 years cost between $145 400 and $182 600 per QALY gained, and price reductions would be required for screening to be cost-effective. LIMITATION: The efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors was derived from a single randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSION: Screening adults for albuminuria to identify CKD could be cost-effective in the United States. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD. RECOMMENDATION 1A: ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 1B: ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

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.

Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP suggests that clinicians refer patients for a colonoscopy after an initial episode of complicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonoscopy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against clinicians using mesalamine to prevent recurrent diverticulitis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests that clinicians discuss elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis after initial treatment in patients who have either uncomplicated diverticulitis that is persistent or recurs frequently or complicated diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision whether or not to undergo surgery should be personalized based on a discussion of potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis in adults. This guideline is based on current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) developed this guideline based on a systematic review on the use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on management via hospitalization, antibiotic use, and interventional percutaneous abscess drainage. The systematic review evaluated outcomes that the CGC rated as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with suspected or known acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP suggests that clinicians use abdominal CT imaging when there is diagnostic uncertainty in a patient with suspected acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests that clinicians manage most patients with acute uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in an outpatient setting (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests that clinicians initially manage select patients with acute uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis without antibiotics (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography versus ultrasound-based surveillance following endovascular aortic repair of intact infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: While Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines recommend computed tomography angiography (CTA) or ultrasound for surveillance following infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), there is a lack of consensus regarding optimal timing and modalities. We hypothesized that ultrasound-based approaches would be more cost-effective and developed a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the lifetime costs and outcomes of various strategies. METHODS: We developed a decision tree with nested Markov models to compare five surveillance strategies: yearly CTA, yearly CDU, yearly CEU, CTA at first year followed by CDU, and CTA at first year followed by CEU. The model accounted for differential sensitivity, specificity, and risk of acute kidney injury after CTA, and was implemented on a monthly cycle with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and 3% annual discounting. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, the CTA-CDU strategy was cost effective with a lifetime cost of $77950 for 7.74 QALYs. In sensitivity analysis, the CTA-CDU approach remained cost-effective when CEU specificity was less than 95%, and risk of acute kidney injury following CTA was less than 20%. At diagnostic sensitivities below 75% for CEU and 55% for CDU, a yearly CTA strategy maximized QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid strategy in which CTA is performed in the first year and CDU is performed annually thereafter is the most cost-effective strategy for infrarenal EVAR surveillance in patients with less than a 20% risk of contrast-induced nephropathy. If the sensitivity of CEU and CDU are at the lower end of plausible estimates, a yearly CTA strategy is reasonable. Further research should aim to identify patients who may benefit from alternative surveillance strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Non-diabetic Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 1 in 7 adults and costs $100 billion annually. The DAPA-CKD trial found dapagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, to be effective in reducing CKD progression and mortality in patients with diabetic and non-diabetic CKD. Currently, SGLT2 inhibitors are not considered standard of care for patients with non-diabetic CKD. OBJECTIVE: Determine the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to standard management of patients with non-diabetic CKD. DESIGN: Markov model with lifetime time horizon and US healthcare sector perspective. PATIENTS: Patients with non-diabetic CKD INTERVENTION: Dapagliflozin plus standard care versus standard care only. MAIN MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), all discounted at 3% annually; total incidence of kidney failure on kidney replacement therapy; average years on kidney replacement therapy. KEY RESULTS: Adding dapagliflozin to standard care improved life expectancy by 2 years, increased discounted QALYS (from 6.75 to 8.06), and reduced the total incidence of kidney failure on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (from 17.4 to 11.0%) and average years on KRT (from 0.77 to 0.43) over the lifetime of the cohort. Dapagliflozin plus standard care was more effective than standard care alone while increasing lifetime costs (from $245,900 to $324,8900, or $60,000 per QALY gained). Results were robust to variations in assumptions about dapagliflozin's efficacy over time and by CKD stage, added costs of kidney replacement therapy, and expected population annual CKD progression rates and sensitive to the cost of dapagliflozin. The net 1-year budgetary implication of treating all US patients with non-diabetic CKD could be up to $21 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin improved life expectancy and reduced progression of CKD, the proportion of patients requiring kidney replacement therapy, and time on kidney replacement therapy in patients with non-diabetic CKD. Use of dapagliflozin meets conventional criteria for cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transitional Care Services After Hospitalization With Heart Failure.

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) discharged from the hospital are at high risk for death and rehospitalization. Transitional care service interventions attempt to mitigate these risks. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 types of postdischarge HF transitional care services and standard care. Design: Decision analytic microsimulation model. Data Sources: Randomized controlled trials, clinical registries, cohort studies, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention life tables, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data, and National Inpatient Sample (Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project) data. Target Population: Patients with HF who were aged 75 years at hospital discharge. Time Horizon: Lifetime. Perspective: Health care sector. Intervention: Disease management clinics, nurse home visits (NHVs), and nurse case management. Outcome Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, net monetary benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results of Base-Case Analysis: All 3 transitional care interventions examined were more costly and effective than standard care, with NHVs dominating the other 2 interventions. Compared with standard care, NHVs increased QALYs (2.49 vs. 2.25) and costs ($81 327 vs. $76 705), resulting in an ICER of $19 570 per QALY gained. Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Results were largely insensitive to variations in in-hospital mortality, age at baseline, or costs of rehospitalization. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that transitional care services were preferred over standard care in nearly all 10 000 samples, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 or more per QALY gained. Limitation: Transitional care service designs and implementations are heterogeneous, leading to uncertainty about intervention effectiveness and costs when applied in particular settings. Conclusion: In older patients with HF, transitional care services are economically attractive, with NHVs being the most cost-effective strategy in many situations. Transitional care services should become the standard of care for postdischarge management of patients with HF. Primary Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation, Research Council of Norway, and an Intermountain-Stanford collaboration.

USPSTF Approach to Addressing Sex and Gender When Making Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services.

Clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are based on transparent, systematic, and rigorous methods that consider the certainty of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit. These guidelines aim to address the needs of diverse populations. Biological sex and gender identity are sources of diversity that are not often considered in studies of clinical preventive services that inform the recommendations, resulting in challenges when evaluating the evidence and communicating recommendations for persons in specific gender identification categories (man/woman/gender nonbinary/gender nonconforming/transgender). To advance its methods, the USPSTF reviewed its past recommendations that included the use of sex and gender terms, reviewed the approaches of other guideline-making bodies, and pilot tested strategies to address sex and gender diversity. Based on the findings, the USPSTF intends to use an inclusive approach to identify issues related to sex and gender at the start of the guideline development process; assess the applicability, variability, and quality of evidence as a function of sex and gender; ensure clarity in the use of language regarding sex and gender; and identify evidence gaps related to sex and gender. Evidence reviews will identify the limitations of applying findings to diverse groups from underlying studies that used unclear terminology regarding sex and gender. The USPSTF will use gender-neutral language when appropriate to communicate that recommendations are inclusive of people of any gender and will clearly state when recommendations apply to individuals with specific anatomy associated with biological sex (male/female) or to specific categories of gender identity. The USPSTF recognizes limited evidence to inform the preventive care of populations based on gender identity.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: An estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5% meet criteria for prediabetes. The prevalences of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older adults. Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause of death in the US in 2017. Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. Objective: To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes. Population: Nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have overweight or obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥25 and ≥30, respectively) and no symptoms of diabetes. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions. (B recommendation).

Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that performs an important role in calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism and also affects many other cellular regulatory functions outside the skeletal system. Vitamin D requirements may vary by individual; thus, no one serum vitamin D level cutpoint defines deficiency, and no consensus exists regarding the precise serum levels of vitamin D that represent optimal health or sufficiency. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for vitamin D deficiency, including the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment. Population: Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency 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 vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).

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

Importance: Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening. 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 colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies. Population: Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]). Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

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

IMPORTANCE: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment. OBJECTIVE: To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models. POPULATION: This recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Cost-Effectiveness of Initial Versus Delayed Lanreotide for Treatment of Metastatic Enteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The Controlled Study of Lanreotide Antiproliferative Response in Neuroendocrine Tumors (CLARINET) trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in patients initially treated with lanreotide versus placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of upfront lanreotide versus active surveillance with lanreotide administered after progression in patients with metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), both of which are treatment options recommended in NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors. METHODS: We developed a Markov model calibrated to the CLARINET trial and its extension. We based the active surveillance strategy on the CLARINET placebo arm. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We modeled lanreotide's cost at $7,638 per 120 mg (average sales price plus 6%), used published utilities (stable disease, 0.77; progressed disease, 0.61), adopted a healthcare sector perspective and lifetime time horizon, and discounted costs and benefits at 3% annually. We examined sensitivity to survival extrapolation and modeled octreotide long-acting release (LAR) ($6,183 per 30 mg). We conducted one-way, multiway, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Upfront lanreotide led to 5.21 QALYs and a cost of $804,600. Active surveillance followed by lanreotide after progression led to 4.84 QALYs and a cost of $590,200, giving an ICER of $578,500/QALY gained. Reducing lanreotide's price by 95% (to $370) or 85% (to $1,128) per 120 mg would allow upfront lanreotide to reach ICERs of $100,000/QALY or $150,000/QALY. Across a range of survival curve extrapolation scenarios, pricing lanreotide at $370 to $4,000 or $1,130 to $5,600 per 120 mg would reach ICERs of $100,000/QALY or $150,000/QALY, respectively. Our findings were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. The ICER modeling octreotide LAR is $482,700/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: At its current price, lanreotide is not cost-effective as initial therapy for patients with metastatic enteropancreatic NETs and should be reserved for postprogression treatment. To be cost-effective as initial therapy, the price of lanreotide would need to be lowered by 48% to 95% or 27% to 86% to reach ICERs of $100,000/QALY or $150,00/QALY, respectively.

Would You Recommend Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for This Patient?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer type in the United States overall, accounting for 9.5% of new cancer cases and 5% of cancer deaths. The goal of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening is to identify early-stage disease that can be treated successfully. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reviewed evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening and treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. It found that PSA-based screening in men aged 55 to 69 years prevents approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over 13 years per 1000 men screened and 3 cases of metastatic cancer per 1000 men screened, with no reduction in all-cause mortality. No benefit was found for PSA-based screening in men aged 70 years and older. On the basis of its review, the USPSTF concluded that the decision for men aged 55 to 69 years to have PSA-based screening should be an individual one and should include a discussion of the potential benefits and harms. Here, 2 experts-an internist and a urologist-discuss the key points of a shared decision-making conversation about PSA-based prostate cancer screening, the PSA-based screening strategy that optimizes benefit and minimizes harm, and the PSA threshold at which they would recommend further diagnostic testing.