Ned Calonge

Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for colorectal cancer. METHODS To update its recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review on 4 selected questions relating to test characteristics and benefits and harms of screening technologies, and 2) a decision analytic modeling analysis using population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of available screening modalities when used in a programmatic way over time. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefits of these screening methods vary. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer in adults 76 to 85 years of age. There may be considerations that support colorectal cancer screening in an individual patient. (C recommendation). The USPSTF recommends against screening for colorectal cancer in adults older than age 85 years. (D recommendation). The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography and fecal DNA testing as screening modalities for colorectal cancer. (I statement).

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working Group

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative, established by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, supports the development and implementation of a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications for clinical and public health practice in the United States. An independent, non-federal EGAPP Working Group (EWG), a multidisciplinary expert panel selects topics, oversees the systematic review of evidence, and makes recommendations based on that evidence. This article describes the EGAPP processes and details the specific methods and approaches used by the EWG.

Validation of Self-Reported Chronic Conditions and Health Services in a Managed Care Population

BACKGROUND Self-reported data are commonly used to estimate the prevalence of health conditions and the use of preventive health services in the population, but the validity of such data is often questioned. METHODS The Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (BRFS) was admin istered by telephone to a stratified, random sample of health maintenanc e organization (HMO) subscribers in Colorado in 1993, and self-reports w ere compared with HMO medical records for 599 adults aged >21. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for three chronic conditions and use of six preventive services. RESULTS Sensitivity was highest for hypertension (83%), moderate for diabetes (73%), and lowest for hypercholesterolemia (59%); specificity was >80% for all three conditions. Sensitivity ranged from 86% to 99% for influenza immunization, clinical breast examination, blood cholesterol screening, mammography, Pap test, and blood pressure screening; specificity was <75% for all preventive services. CONCLUSIONS Self-reports are reasonably accurate for certain chronic conditions and for routine screening exams and can provide a useful estimate for broad measures of population prevalence.

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives

Summary of Recommendations: The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group found sufficient evidence to recommend offering genetic testing for Lynch syndrome to individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer to reduce morbidity and mortality in relatives. We found insufficient evidence to recommend a specific genetic testing strategy among the several examined.Rationale: Genetic testing to detect Lynch syndrome in individuals with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) is proposed as a strategy to reduce CRC morbidity and mortality in their relatives (see Clinical Considerations section for definition of Lynch syndrome). The EGAPP Working Group (EWG) constructed a chain of evidence that linked genetic testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with newly diagnosed CRC with improved health outcomes in their relatives. We found that assessing patients who have newly diagnosed CRC with a series of genetic tests could lead to the identification of Lynch syndrome. Relatives of patients with Lynch syndrome could then be offered genetic testing, and, where indicated, colorectal, and possibly endometrial, cancer surveillance, with the expectation of improved health outcome. The EWG concluded that there is moderate certainty that such a testing strategy would provide moderate population benefit.Analytic Validity: The EWG found adequate evidence to conclude that the analytic sensitivity and specificity for preliminary and diagnostic tests were high.Clinical Validity: After accounting for the specific technologies and numbers of markers used, the EWG found at least adequate evidence to describe the clinical sensitivity and specificity for three preliminary tests, and for four selected testing strategies. These measures of clinical validity varied with each test and each strategy (see Clinical Considerations section).Clinical Utility: The EWG found adequate evidence for testing uptake rates, adherence to recommended surveillance activities, number of relatives approachable, harms associated with additional follow-up, and effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. This chain of evidence supported the use of genetic testing strategies to reduce morbidity/mortality in relatives with Lynch syndrome. Several genetic testing strategies were potentially effective, but none was clearly superior. The evidence for or against effectiveness of identifying mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations in reducing endometrial cancer morbidity or mortality was inadequate.Contextual Issues: CRC is a common disease responsible for an estimated 52,000 deaths in the United States in 2007. In about 3% of newly diagnosed CRC, the underlying cause is a mutation in a MMR gene (Lynch syndrome) that can be reliably identified with existing laboratory tests. Relatives inheriting the mutation have a high (about 45% by age 70) risk of developing CRC. Evidence suggests these relatives will often accept testing and increased surveillance.

Aspirin for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

DESCRIPTION Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about the use of aspirin for the prevention of coronary heart disease. METHODS Review of the literature since 2002, focusing on new evidence on the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction and stroke. The new evidence was reviewed and synthesized according to sex. RECOMMENDATIONS Encourage men age 45 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in myocardial infarctions outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Encourage women age 55 to 79 years to use aspirin when the potential benefit of a reduction in ischemic strokes outweighs the potential harm of an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage. (A recommendation) Evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention in men and women 80 years or older. (I statement) Do not encourage aspirin use for cardiovascular disease prevention in women younger than 55 years and in men younger than 45 years. (D recommendation).

Screening for chlamydial infection: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about preventive care services for patients without recognized signs or symptoms of the target condition. The USPSTF bases its recommendations on a systematic review of the evidence of the benefits and harms and an assessment of the net benefit of the service. The USPSTF recognizes that clinical or policy decisions involve more considerations than this body of evidence alone. Clinicians and policymakers should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation. Summary of Recommendation and Evidence The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydial infection for all sexually active nonpregnant young women age 24 years or younger and older nonpregnant women who are at increased risk (Figure). This is a grade A recommendation. The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydial infection for all pregnant women age 24 years or younger and for older pregnant women who are at increased risk (Figure). This is a grade B recommendation. The USPSTF recommends against routinely screening for chlamydial infection for women age 25 years or older, regardless of whether they are pregnant, if they are not at increased risk (Figure). This is a grade C recommendation. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydial infection for men (Figure). This is an I statement. See Table 1 for a description of the USPSTF grades and Table 2 for a description of the USPSTF classification of levels of certainty regarding net benefit. Both are also available at www.annals.org. Figure. Screening for chlamydial infection. For a summary of the evidence systematically reviewed in making these recommendations, the full recommendation statement, and supporting documents, please go to www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov. *Chlamydial infection results in few sequelae in men. Therefore, the major benefit of screening men would be to reduce the likelihood that infected and untreated men would pass the infection to sexual partners. There is no evidence that screening men reduces the long-term consequences of chlamydial infection in women. Because of this lack of evidence, the USPSTF could not assess the balance of benefits and harms and concluded that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routinely screening men. Information from reference 1. Table 1. What the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grades Mean and Suggestions for Practice* Table 2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Levels of Certainty Regarding Net Benefit See the Clinical Considerations section for discussion of assessing risk for chlamydial infection in women and suggestions for practice regarding screening for men. Rationale Importance Chlamydial infection is the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infection in the United States. In women, genital chlamydial infection may result in urethritis, cervicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Chlamydial infection during pregnancy is related to adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, low birth weight, and infant mortality. Detection The USPSTF found fair evidence that nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) can identify chlamydial infection in asymptomatic men and women, including asymptomatic pregnant women, with high test specificity. In low-prevalence populations, however, a positive test result is more likely to be false positive than true positive, even with the most accurate tests available. Benefits of Detection and Early Intervention Nonpregnant Women at Increased Risk There is good evidence that screening for chlamydial infection in nonpregnant women who are at increased risk can reduce the incidence of PID. The USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening nonpregnant women at increased risk are substantial. Pregnant Women at Increased Risk There are no studies evaluating the effectiveness of screening for chlamydial infection in pregnant women who are at increased risk. The USPSTF, however, found that 1) screening identifies infection in asymptomatic pregnant women, 2) there is a relatively high prevalence of infection among pregnant women who are at increased risk, and 3) there is fair evidence of improved pregnancy and birth outcomes for women who are treated for chlamydial infection. The USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening pregnant women who are at increased risk are substantial. Women Not at Increased Risk The USPSTF identified no studies documenting the benefits of screening women, including pregnant women, who are not at increased risk for chlamydial infection. While recognizing the potential benefit to women identified through screening, the USPSTF concluded that the overall benefit of screening would be small, given the low prevalence of infection among women not at increased risk. Men While concluding that the direct benefit of screening in men was likely to be small, the USPSTF noted that screening for chlamydial infection in men may be beneficial if it were to lead to a decreased incidence of chlamydial infection in women. The USPSTF did not, however, find evidence to support this outcome and therefore concluded that the benefits of screening men are unknown. The USPSTF identified this as a critical gap in the evidence. Harms of Detection and Early Treatment The USPSTF concluded that the harms of screening for chlamydial infection are small, although few studies have been published on this subject. Potential harms include anxiety and relationship problems arising from false-positive results and overtreatment. The USPSTF identified the lack of evidence related to potential harms of screening as a gap in the evidence.The USPSTF reached the following conclusions: For nonpregnant women at increased risk, the certainty is high that the benefits of screening for chlamydial infection substantially outweigh the harms. This is a grade A recommendation. For pregnant women at increased risk, the certainty is moderate that the benefits substantially outweigh the harms of screening for chlamydial infection. This is a grade B recommendation. For women not at increased risk (including pregnant women not at increased risk), the certainty is moderate that the benefits outweigh the harms of screening to only a small degree. There may be considerations that support screening an individual patient. This is a grade C recommendation. For men, the benefits of screening are not known; thus, the USPSTF could not determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening men for chlamydial infection. This is an I statement. Clinical Considerations Patient Population under Consideration These recommendations target all sexually active individuals, including adolescents and pregnant women. Assessment of Risk All sexually active women 24 years of age or younger, including adolescents, are at increased risk for chlamydial infection. In addition to sexual activity and age, other risk factors for chlamydial infection include a history of chlamydial or other sexually transmitted infection, new or multiple sexual partners, inconsistent condom use, and exchanging sex for money or drugs. Risk factors for pregnant women are the same as for nonpregnant women. Prevalence of chlamydial infection varies widely among patient populations. African-American and Hispanic women have a higher prevalence of infection than the general population in many communities and settings. Among men and women, increased prevalence rates are also found in incarcerated populations, military recruits, and patients at public sexually transmitted infection clinics. Screening Tests Nucleic acid amplification tests have high specificity and sensitivity when used as screening tests for chlamydial infection. Nucleic acid amplification tests can be used with urine and vaginal swabs, enabling screening when a pelvic examination is not performed. Treatment Appropriate treatment of chlamydial infection has been outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment). In its 2006 sexually transmitted disease treatment guidelines, the CDC recommends that chlamydia infection be treated with 1 g of azithromycin in a single oral dose or with oral doxycycline, 100 mg twice daily for 7 days. Pregnant women with chlamydial infection may be treated with 1 g of azithromycin in a single oral dose or amoxicillin, 500 mg orally 3 times daily for 7 days (1). Because the CDC updates these recommendations regularly, clinicians are encouraged to access the CDC Web site (www.cdc.gov/std/treatment) to obtain the most up-to-date information. To prevent recurrent transmission, clinicians should ensure that all sexual partners of infected individuals are tested and treated if infected, or treated presumptively. Screening Intervals Screening pregnant women who are at increased risk for chlamydial infection is recommended at the first prenatal visit. For pregnant women who remain at increased risk and for those who acquire a new risk factor, such as a new sexual partner, a screening should be conducted during the third trimester. The optimal interval for screening for nonpregnant women is unknown. The CDC recommends at least annual screening for women at increased risk (1). Suggestions for Practice with regard to Insufficient Evidence on Screening in Men The USPSTF concluded that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms related to screening men for chlamydial infection. Specifically, the USPSTF did not find evidence that screening programs that target men result in a decreased incidence of infection in women. The USPSTF notes that programs that screen men as a means of reducing transmission to women are not common practice, that primary care clinicians can institute screening in men, that the costs of ad

Screening and Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

DESCRIPTION. This is an update of the 2002 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on screening for child and adolescent major depressive disorder. METHODS. The US Preventive Services Task Force weighed the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for major depressive disorder in children and adolescents, incorporating new evidence addressing gaps in the 2002 recommendation statement. Evidence examined included the benefits and harms of screening, the accuracy of primary care–feasible screening tests, and the benefits and risks of treating depression by using psychotherapy and/or medications in patients aged 7 to 18 years. RECOMMENDATIONS. Screen adolescents (12–18 years of age) for major depressive disorder when systems are in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, psychotherapy (cognitive-behavioral or interpersonal), and follow-up (B recommendation). Evidence is insufficient to warrant a recommendation to screen children (7–11 years of age) for major depressive disorder (I statement).

Using nontraditional risk factors in coronary heart disease risk assessment: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION New recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on the use of nontraditional, or novel, risk factors in assessing the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of asymptomatic persons. METHODS Systematic reviews were conducted of literature since 1996 on 9 proposed nontraditional markers of CHD risk: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, ankle-brachial index, leukocyte count, fasting blood glucose, periodontal disease, carotid intima-media thickness, coronary artery calcification score on electron-beam computed tomography, homocysteine, and lipoprotein(a). The reviews followed a hierarchical approach aimed at determining which factors could practically and definitively reassign persons assessed as intermediate-risk according to their Framingham score to either a high-risk or low-risk strata, and thereby improve outcomes by means of aggressive risk-factor modification in those newly assigned to the high-risk stratum. RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of using the nontraditional risk factors studied to screen asymptomatic men and women with no history of CHD to prevent CHD events. (I statement).

Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement

DESCRIPTION Updated U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation about screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. METHODS To estimate the balance of benefits and harms of screening, the USPSTF updated its 2003 evidence review, adding evidence from new trials as well as updates on earlier studies. The review for this current recommendation focused on evidence that early treatment prevented long-term adverse outcomes of diabetes, including cardiovascular events, visual impairment, renal failure, and amputation. RECOMMENDATIONS Screen for type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic adults with sustained blood pressure (either treated or untreated) greater than 135/80 mm Hg. (B recommendation) Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening in asymptomatic adults with blood pressure of 135/80 mm Hg or lower. (I statement).

Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: testing for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms in adults with nonpsychotic depression treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

This statement summarizes the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group recommendations regarding CYP450 genetic testing in adult patients beginning treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the supporting scientific evidence. EGAPP is a project developed by the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support a rigorous, evidence-based process for evaluating genetic tests and other genomic applications that are in transition from research to clinical and public health practice in the United States. A key goal of the EGAPP Working Group is to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding clinical genomic applications and to establish clear linkage to the supporting scientific evidence. The Working Group members are nonfederal experts in genetics, laboratory medicine, and clinical epidemiology convened to establish methods and processes; set priorities for review topics; participate in technical expert panels for commissioned evidence reviews; publish recommendations; and provide guidance and feedback on other project activities.Summary of Recommendation The EGAPP Working Group found insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for or against use of CYP450 testing in adults beginning SSRI treatment for non-psychotic depression. In the absence of supporting evidence, and with consideration of other contextual issues, EGAPP discourages use of CYP450 testing for patients beginning SSRI treatment until further clinical trials are completed.Rationale: The EGAPP Working Group found no evidence linking testing for CYP450 to clinical outcomes in adults treated with SSRIs. While some studies of a single SSRI dose in healthy patients report an association between genotypic CYP450 drug metabolizer status and circulating SSRI levels, this association was not supported by studies of patients receiving ongoing SSRI treatment. Further, CYP450 genotypes are not consistently associated with the patient outcomes of interest, including clinical response to SSRI treatment or adverse events as a result of treatment. No evidence was available showing that the results of CYP450 testing influenced SSRI choice or dose and improved patient outcomes, or was useful in medical, personal, or public health decision-making. In the absence of evidence supporting clinical utility, it is not known if potential benefits from CYP450 testing will outweigh potential harms. Potential harms may include increased cost without impact on clinical decision making or improvement in patient outcomes, less effective treatment with SSRI drugs, or inappropriate use of genotype information in the management of other drugs metabolized by CYP450 enzymes.