United States Preventive Services Task Research Articles

A retrospective single-centre analysis of the prevalence of statin use in geriatric oncology: Is there a role for cessation?

e24016 Background: Statins have become ubiquitous in medicine. There is a myriad of indications, and the duration of treatment required for efficacy is measured in years. There is a need for clarity on their role in geriatric oncology and when to de-prescribe. Within a sample of Irish patients in 1987, 8% would have been eligible for a statin. By 2016, this had climbed to 61%. During this time, the number needed to treat increased from 40 to 400. In terms of benefit, a meta-analysis concluded that 100 patients need treatment for 2.5 years to prevent one major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in the primary preventative setting. It is not clear whether this benefit is derived in later life. As a result, the United States preventive service task force concluded that evidence is insufficient to recommend initiating a statin for primary prevention in adults over 75. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of statin use in older adults with cancer, and the evidence for de-prescribing. Methods: Data was retrospectively collected from a prospectively maintained database of patients attending the Geriatric Oncology Assessment and Liaision (GOAL) clinic in the South East Cancer Centre, University Hospital Waterford, Ireland. Data collected includes age at cancer diagnosis, stage, co-morbidities, and medications. We determined how many patients were taking statins (or ezetimibe) prior to first oncology review, their indication and overall survival. Indications for statins were categorised using a hierarchy of indications, as described by Wallach Kildemoes et al. Results: 138 of 233 patients were taking statins at the time of their review (59%). The average age at cancer diagnosis was 78.6 years. Seventy-nine were taking statins for primary prevention (58%). 15 of 79 whom had diabetes. Stage 3 or 4 disease accounted for 78% of this group. Overall survival in this group was 1.59 years. Within the group with stage 4 disease (n = 100), 53 were taking a statin. Twenty-eight (52.8%) were for primary prevention. Within this group, 6 had diabetes. Overall survival in this group was 1.44 years. Conclusions: Overall survival of patients was short of the 2.5 years required to provide benefit. Therefore, there is evidence to stop this medication in the primary preventative group, once diagnosed with advanced cancer. The stage 4 disease group included patients undergoing secondary prevention, so treatment is more efficacious. However, with an overall survival of 1.44 years, the window for benefit is small.[Table: see text]

Screening for colorectal cancer : Arecommendation statement of the Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening.

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Austria. To date, colorectal cancer screening in Austria remains opportunistic and includes colonoscopy or stool-based blood tests. The Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening developed evidence-based recommendations for anationwide organized colorectal cancer screening program. The methodological framework followed the approach of the United States Preventive Services Task Force. The evidence base underlying the newly developed recommendations comprised areview of the existing published evidence and adecision analytic model tailored to the Austrian context. Using astructured process, committee members considered 1)the magnitude of the net benefit of each screening strategy, 2)the certainty of evidence, and 3)the level of acceptance of the interventions among the target population. The Austrian National Committee for Cancer Screening recommends the implementation of anationwide organized colorectal cancer screening program for all adults aged 45-75years. For persons 65years or older, screening decisions should occur on an individual basis in accordance with aperson's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. Specifically, the committee recommends either a10-year screening colonoscopy or biennial fecal immunochemical tests with colonoscopy following apositive result, with both screening strategies considered equivalent. Each citizen should be able to make an informed decision about their preferred screening method. Switching between the two screening strategies should be possible. Following an unremarkable colonoscopy, screening by fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is only required after 10years. Screening recommendations apply only to asymptomatic persons at average risk for colorectal cancer. The screening program must be pilot tested, and accompanied by apublic information campaign, formative evaluation, quality assurance, and data collection.

Patient and provider factors associated with colorectal cancer screening among average risk health plan enrollees in the US, 2015–2018

BackgroundTo assess patient and primary care provider (PCP) factors associated with adherence to American Cancer Society (ACS) and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for average risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.MethodsRetrospective case-control study of medical and pharmacy claims from the Optum Research Database from 01/01/2014 − 12/31/2018. Enrollee sample was adults aged 50 − 75 years with ≥ 24 months continuous health plan enrollment. Provider sample was PCPs listed on the claims of average-risk patients in the enrollee sample. Enrollee-level screening opportunities were based on their exposure to the healthcare system during the baseline year. Screening adherence, calculated at the PCP level, was the percent of average-risk patients up to date with screening recommendations each year. Logistic regression modelling was used to examine the association between receipt of screening and enrollee and PCP characteristics. An ordinary least squares model was used to determine the association between screening adherence among the PCP’s panel of patients and patient characteristics.ResultsAmong patients with a PCP, adherence to ACS and USPSTF screening guidelines ranged from 69 to 80% depending on PCP specialty and type. The greatest enrollee-level predictors for CRC screening were having a primary/preventive care visit (OR = 4.47, p < 0.001) and a main PCP (OR = 2.69, p < 0.001).ConclusionsIncreased access to preventive/primary care visits could improve CRC screening rates; however, interventions not dependent on healthcare system contact, such as home-based screening, may circumvent the dependence on primary care visits to complete CRC screening.

Your New Year’s “resolution”—check your “screen!”

Your New Year’s “resolution”—check your “screen!”

Factors associated with breast cancer screening services use among women in the United States: An application of the Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use

This study applied Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use to examine predisposing, enabling, and need factors associated with adherence to the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for breast cancer screening (BCS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors of BCS services utilization among 5484 women aged 50–74 from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. Predisposing factors significantly associated with use of BCS services were: being a Black (odds-ratios [OR]:1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.14–1.95) or a Hispanic woman (OR:2.25; CI:1.62–3.12); being married/partnered (OR:1.32, CI:1.12–1.55); having more than a bachelor's degree (OR: 1.62; CI:1.14–2.30); and living in rural areas (OR:0.72; CI:0.59–0.92). Enabling factors were: poverty level [≤138% federal poverty level (FPL) (OR:0.74; CI:0.56–0.97), >138–250% FPL (OR:0.77; CI:0.61–0.97), and > 250–400% FPL (OR:0.77; CI:0.63–0.94)]; being uninsured (OR:0.29; CI:0.21–0.40); having a usual source of care at a physician office (OR:7.27; CI:4.99–10.57) or other healthcare facilities (OR:4.12; CI:2.68–6.33); and previous breast examination by a healthcare professional (OR:2.10; CI:1.68–2.64). Need factors were: having fair/poor health (OR:0.76; CI:0.59–0.97) and being underweight (OR:0.46; CI:0.30–0.71). Disparities in BCS services utilization by Black and Hispanic women have been reduced. Disparities still exist for uninsured and financially restrained women living in rural areas. Addressing disparities in BCS uptake and improving adherence to USPSTF guidelines may require revamping policies that address disparities in enabling resources, such as health insurance, income, and health care access.

Do age-based discontinuation recommendations influence cervical cancer screening rates? Evidence from the United States' Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016 and 2018

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that women with adequate prior screening and average cervical cancer risk discontinue routine cervical cancer screening after age 65. This study's objective was to estimate how the USPSTF recommendation affects Papanicolaou (Pap) test rates among women at age 66 in the United States. We used nationally representative 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for women ages 56–76 (n = 226,031) and a regression discontinuity design to estimate changes in annual Pap test rates at age 66. Among women age 66–76, 22.5% reported receiving a Pap test within the past one year. At age 66, annual Pap rates declined by 5.9 percentage points (p.p.) (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: −7.7, −4.1) off a pre-66 rate of 39%. The change varied by race/ethnicity, education, and marital status. Pap rates did not change discretely for non-Hispanic Black women (0.8 p.p.; 95% CI: −5.4, 7.1) but did for women from other racial/ethnic groups. The decline was larger for women who graduated college (−9.0 p.p.; 95% CI: −12.0, −5.9) than for women without a college degree and for women who were never married (−9.4 p.p., 95% CI: −17.3, −1.5) than for women who were married/partnered or divorced/separated. The USPSTF recommendation to discontinue cervical cancer screening after age 65 leads to a sharp decline in Pap test rates at age 66 but disparately affects women based on race, education and marital status. Further study is needed to assess the consequences of these changes.

Re: The Prevalence of Low-Value Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Study Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

To the Editor: Gillette et al analyze how PSA screening for age 70 and over, a low-value service, is being implemented in the United States.[1][1] For PSA screening, the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) assigns grade C to those aged 55 to 70 and grade D to all other age groups.

Associations Between Clinic-Based HIV Testing Guidelines and Population-Level HIV Testing Rates in the United States.

Between 2005 and 2006, the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised their risk-based HIV testing guidelines to include universal HIV testing in routine health care. We examined trends in HIV testing and associations with changing policy recommendations using the 2000-2017 National Health Interview Surveys. Multivariable logistic regression and difference-in-difference approach were used to assess rates and correlates of HIV testing before and after the policy changes. Changes in recommendations had minimal effects on overall HIV testing rates but had significant effects on selected subpopulations. The odds of HIV testing increased disproportionately among African Americans, Hispanics, individuals with some college education, low perceived HIV risks, and those who were never married but decreased among those with no regular source of care. A strategy combining risk-based and routine opt-out testing holds promise to rapidly link recently infected individuals to care while reaching individuals who have never been tested.

A Survey of Personal Health Habits, Wellness, and Burnout in Practicing Orthopaedic Surgeons—Are We Taking Care of Ourselves?

The personality traits of those who become orthopaedic surgeons may also lead to overwork, work-life balance issues, and burnout. Health and wellness practices of orthopaedic surgeons have not been widely explored. This study evaluated the personal health habits, wellness, and burnout of practicing orthopaedic surgeons in the United States. An anonymous self-assessment survey was completed by 234 practicing orthopaedic surgeon alumni from two large residency programs. The survey assessed exercise habits according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, compliance with preventive medical care practices according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force, prioritization of occupational wellness strategies, and the presence of burnout via an adapted Maslach Burnout Inventory. Survey responders' mean age was 52 years, 88% were male, and 93% had a body mass index <30 kg/m2. Surgeons were stratified according to practice type, years in practice, and subspecialty. Among orthopaedic surgeons, compliance with aerobic and strength exercise recommendations was 31%. Surgeons in academic practice were significantly (P = 0.007) less compliant with exercise recommendations (18%) compared with private (34%) or employed (43%) practicing surgeons. Most (71%) had seen their primary care provider within 2 years and were up to date on age-appropriate health care screening including a cholesterol check within 5 years (79%), colonoscopy (89%), and mammogram (92%). Protecting time away from work for family/friends and finding meaning in work were the most important wellness strategies. The overall burnout rate was 15% and remained not significantly different (P > 0.3) regardless of years in practice, practice type, or subspecialty. This survey study identifies practicing orthopaedic surgeons' health habits and wellness strategies, including limited compliance with aerobic and strength exercise recommendations. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of areas of diminished personal wellness to improve quality of life and avoid burnout.

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test use in the US territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands

BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening among eligible adults, but information on screening use in the US territories is limited. MethodsTo estimate the proportion of adults up-to-date with breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on USPSTF recommendations, we analyzed Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2016, 2018, and 2020 for the 50 US states and DC (US) and US territories of Guam and Puerto Rico and from 2016 for the US Virgin Islands. Age-standardized weighted proportions for up-to-date cancer screening were examined overall and by select characteristics for each jurisdiction. ResultsOverall, 67.2% (95% CI: 60.6–73.3) of women aged 50–74 years in the US Virgin Islands, 74.8% (70.9–78.3) in Guam, 83.4% (81.7–84.9) in Puerto Rico, and 78.3% (77.9–78.6) in the US were up-to-date with breast cancer screening. For cervical cancer screening, 71.1% (67.6–74.3) of women aged 21–65 years in Guam, 81.3% (74.6–86.5) in the US Virgin Islands, 83.0% (81.7–84.3) in Puerto Rico, and 84.5% (84.3–84.8) in the US were up-to-date. For colorectal cancer screening, 45.2% (40.0–50.5) of adults aged 50–75 years in the US Virgin Islands, 47.3% (43.6–51.0) in Guam, 61.2% (59.5–62.8) in Puerto Rico, and 69.0% (68.7–69.3) in the US were up-to-date. Adults without health care coverage reported low test use for all three cancers in all jurisdictions. In most jurisdictions, test use was lower among adults with less than a high school degree and an annual household income of < $25,000. ConclusionCancer screening test use varied between the US territories, highlighting the importance of understanding and addressing territory-specific barriers. Test use was lower among groups without health care coverage and with lower income and education levels, suggesting the need for targeted evidence-based interventions.

Evidence-Based Treatment of Pain in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and often painful condition that occurs after administration of chemotherapeutic agents. The primary objective of this systematic review was to appraise the literature on conservative, pharmacological, and interventional treatment options for CIPN pain. There is level I evidence supporting modest to moderate improvement in CIPN pain from duloxetine treatment, as well as short-term modest improvement from physical therapy and acupuncture. Although opioid and cannabis administration may provide short-term modest improvement, administration is commonly limited by side effects. Generally, most studies reported no clinical benefit from yoga, topical neuropathic agents, gabapentinoids, and tricyclic antidepressants. Evidence is currently equivocal for scrambler therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Finally, evidence on neuromodulation options is limited to mostly case reports/series and one observational study highlighting moderate improvement with auricular nerve stimulation. This systematic review provides an overview of conservative, pharmacologic, and interventional treatment modalities for CIPN pain. Furthermore, it provides a level of evidence and degree of recommendation based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for each specific treatment modality.

MP67-05 IMPACTS ON FUNCTIONAL AND ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY 10 YEARS AFTER THE TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST PSA SCREENING

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP67-05 IMPACTS ON FUNCTIONAL AND ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF ROBOTIC-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY 10 YEARS AFTER THE TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST PSA SCREENING Marcio Covas Moschovas, Jaber Abdel, Shady Saikali, Seetharam Bhat, Marco Sandri, Travis Rogers, David Loy, and Vipul Patel Marcio Covas MoschovasMarcio Covas Moschovas More articles by this author , Jaber AbdelJaber Abdel More articles by this author , Shady SaikaliShady Saikali More articles by this author , Seetharam BhatSeetharam Bhat More articles by this author , Marco SandriMarco Sandri More articles by this author , Travis RogersTravis Rogers More articles by this author , David LoyDavid Loy More articles by this author , and Vipul PatelVipul Patel More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003330.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: For experienced surgeons, prostate cancer outcomes are ultimately affected by the pathology of the disease they treat. Over the last decade, we have experienced a dramatic alteration in the pathology we are addressing. During this time, the most significant shift in prostate cancer management was the 2012 USPSTF (United States Preventive Service Task Force) decision to recommend against PSA screening. This has affected the types of prostate cancers we are treating and potentially influenced treatment outcomes. We aimed to analyze the functional and oncologic trends in prostate cancer outcomes in the largest single surgeon series. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospective IRB-approved prostate cancer registry for 11396 patients that underwent RALP between 2008 and 2021. Each patient had at least a 12-month follow-up. The cohort was divided into two groups before and 6 months after the USPSTF recommendation. Group 1: 1/2008- 12/2012, Group 2: 1/ 2013-12-2021. Group 1 had 4760 patients, and Group 2 had 6636 patients, with a median follow-up of 109 and 38 months, respectively. We assessed the functional and oncologic outcomes of the two groups. RESULTS: We detected time-trend changes after 2012. There was a migration to younger ages, less than 60, and an increase in the median preoperative PSA (5 to 6 ng/ml). There was 18% increase in the higher grade and stage of the disease, Gleason ≥3+4 (19% increase), and ≥ pT3 (18% increase). This translated into a 6% increase in positive surgical margins with an initial rapid increase that was tempered with a surgical adjustment in the amount of (NS) nerve sparing. There was a 24% reduction in full nerve sparing in response to the worsening pathology. Outcomes were also affected by the modification in NS. Comparing groups 1 and 2, there was a significant decline in post-operative outcomes: 12-month continence reduction by 9%, reduction in potency by 27%, and trifecta by 22%. CONCLUSIONS: We have witnessed a significant change in the types of patients we are seeing and the outcomes we are able to deliver. We are seeing younger patients with higher-grade diseases, and the increasing number of high-risk patients has led to worse functional and oncologic outcomes. The initial rapid rise in PSM was leveled by the move towards more partial nerve sparing. The USPSTF recommendation has affected the oncology and outcomes of prostate cancer in an increasingly younger patient population. Source of Funding: none © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e944 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Marcio Covas Moschovas More articles by this author Jaber Abdel More articles by this author Shady Saikali More articles by this author Seetharam Bhat More articles by this author Marco Sandri More articles by this author Travis Rogers More articles by this author David Loy More articles by this author Vipul Patel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Timely adherence to follow-up after high-risk lung cancer screenings.

To achieve the lung cancer screening (LCS) mortality benefit in clinical trials, timely, real-world follow-up of abnormal test results is necessary. Presently, annual LCS rates are lower than in trials, and adherence to follow-up after suspicious findings has not been well studied. This study examined timely adherence to follow-up recommendations after positive low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screenings. This retrospective study included individuals from two academic primary care practices in New York City who met United States Preventative Services Task Force LCS eligibility and had a positive LDCT scan between 2013 and 2020. They were recommended for shorter interval follow-up repeat computed tomography (CT), CT biopsy, or positron emission tomography/CT. Adherence was completion of the prescribed imaging by 15 days after the recommended 7-, 30-, and 90-day follow-up and by 30 days after the 180-day recommended follow-up. Among 106 individuals with a positive LDCT scan, 64 (60%) were adherent to follow-up recommendations. Adherence was 72%, 63%, and 42% for recommended follow-ups of 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively. Being male was a predictor of a lower adherence rate. Among 23 individuals newly diagnosed with lung cancer after a positive LDCT scan, 83% were adherent to follow-up testing and 82% of cancers were Stage 1A or limited stage. There was variable adherence to the LCS follow-up recommendations despite positive screening CT, suggesting that even in a well-established screening program there may not be an efficient, systematic approach for follow-up. The delays in repeat testing potentially undermine the benefits of early detection.

Considerations and Evaluation of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer

Worldwide there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC). This prompted the United States Preventive Services Task Force to lower the age of colorectal cancer screening to 45 years for average-risk individuals. Nurse practitioners have an important role in implementing these evidence-based guidelines, understanding the risk factors for eoCRC, identifying concerning signs and symptoms of eoCRC, and providing thorough evaluations. Although more research is needed to understand eoCRC, nurse practitioners can use current knowledge to make meaningful impacts on the communities they serve.

Most privately insured patients do not receive federally recommended abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

ObjectiveSince 2005, the United States Preventative Services Task Force has recommended abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) ultrasound screening for 65- to 75-year-old male ever-smokers. Integrated health systems such as Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system report 74% to 79% adherence, but compliance rates in the private sector are unknown. MethodsThe IBM Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (2006-2017) were queried for male ever-smokers continuously enrolled from age 65 to 75 years. Exclusion criteria were previous history of AAA, connective tissue disorder, and aortic surgery. Patients with abdominal computed tomographic or magnetic resonance imaging from ages 65 to 75 years were also excluded. Screening was defined as a complete abdominal, retroperitoneal, or aortic ultrasound. A logistic mixed-effects model utilizing state as a random intercept was used to identify patient characteristics associated with screening. ResultsOf 35,154 eligible patients, 13,612 (38.7%) underwent screening. Compliance varied by state, ranging from 24.4% in Minnesota to 51.6% in Montana (P < .05). Screening activity increased yearly, with 0.7% of screening activity occurring in 2008 vs 22.2% in 2016 (P <.05). In a logistic mixed-effects model adjusting for state as a random intercept, history of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.13), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22), diabetes (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53) were associated with screening. Living outside of a census-designated metropolitan area was negatively associated with screening (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97). ConclusionsIn a private claims database representing 250 million claimants, 38.7% of eligible patients received United States Preventative Services Task Force-recommended AAA screening. Compliance was nearly one-half that of integrated health systems and was significantly lower for patients living outside of metropolitan areas. Efforts to improve early detection of AAA should include targeting non-metropolitan areas and modifying Medicare reimbursement and incentivization strategies to improve guideline adherence.

Women's Health Maintenance Efforts at a Student-Run Free Clinic in South Florida Exceeded National Trends During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed a setback to health maintenance screenings worldwide. These delays have impacted minorities and those of low socioeconomic status in the same way that disparities in cancer screenings have historically trended. Here, we evaluated the performance of a student-run free clinic in maintaining women up-to-date with cancer screenings before, during, and after the pandemic in relation to national trends. We identified all women eligible for screening mammography and cervical cancer screenings between 2018 and 2022 at the clinic (N = 185). Adequate adherence to screening was defined according to the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommendations for breast mammography, and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for cervical cancer screenings. For cervical cancer screening, 166 female patients seen between 2018 and 2022 were eligible, and up-to-date proportions were as follows: 81.3% in 2018; 90.9% in 2019; 83.3% in 2020; 93.3% in 2021; 93.8% in 2022. For breast surveillance, 143 women were eligible for screening mammography, and up-to-date proportions were as follows: 66.7% in 2018; 62.5% in 2019; 91.7% in 2020; 73.1% in 2021; 84.1% in 2022. These proportions were higher than or near national averages.In conclusion, adherence remained steady during the pandemic and was not subject to the declines seen nationally. Our clinic represents an effective model for promoting women's health maintenance and tempering the disparities seen among women of low socioeconomic status.

Critical gaps in knowledge and implementation of recommendations by the US Preventive Services Task Force

IntroductionThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued 31 recommendations applicable to non-pregnant adults. We hypothesized variability in knowledge and implementation of these recommendations among US family medicine resident physicians. MethodsWe performed two electronic surveys: a local survey, and then a nationally-representative, multicenter, survey. We evaluated self-reported knowledge and implementation of USPSTF recommendations related to non-pregnant adults. Results84 family medicine residents from 40 residency programs across 25 states participated. Knowledge and implementation of recommendations varied widely. Most residents lacked knowledge relating to breast cancer chemoprophylaxis (9.9 % “known in detail” or “mostly know”), BRCA-related genetic counseling (BRCA-GC) referral (30 %), tuberculosis (TB) screening (41 %), and sexually transmitted infection (STI) counseling (45 %). There is virtually no implementation of recommendations for breast cancer chemoprophylaxis (90 % never/rarely implement). Many residents never/rarely implement recommendations for BRCA-GC referral (75 %), TB screening (62 %), and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (61 %). This remained true even for residents in their final year of training. Relative to their male counterparts, female physicians more frequently implemented recommendations for BRCA-GC referral (11 % vs 0 % always/often implement, p = 0.019), cervical cancer screening (100 % vs 83 %, p = 0.019), and folic acid supplementation (60 % vs 29 %, p = 0.007). Knowledge and implementation of recommendations were strongly related (β = 0.75, 95 % CI 0.50–1.00, p < 0.001, Spearman R2 = 0.56). ConclusionCritical gaps exist in resident knowledge and implementation of USPSTF recommendations. We discuss urgent implications for cancer prevention, public health, and health equity.

Investigating the racial gap in prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen among younger men from 2012 to 2020.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in 2012, which was modified in 2018 into shared decision making for men aged 55-70 years with a life expectancy over 10 years. We studied the trends in PSA screening in younger Black and White men with the implementation of the 2012 and 2018 guidelines. Younger Black and White men (aged 40-54 years) were identified using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database biennially from 2012 to 2020. Our primary outcome was PSA screening within 2 years of the survey. An adjusted logistic regression model with 2-way interaction assessment between race and survey year was used to investigate the temporal trend of PSA screening in younger Black and White men. A total of 142 892 men were included. We saw steadily decreasing odds of PSA screening among both younger Black and White men in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 compared with 2012 (for younger Black men: odds ratio [OR]2014 = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.96, OR2016 = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.63, OR2018 = 0.33, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.42, OR2020 = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.32; and for younger White men: OR2014 = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.87, OR2016 = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.71, OR2018 = 0.41, 95%CI = 0.37 to 0.44, OR2020 = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.39). Younger Black men showed a brisker decrease in PSA screening in 2016, 2018, and 2020 compared with younger White men (all P < .05). PSA screening among younger men steadily decreased over the past decade since the 2012 United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, demonstrating a narrowing racial gap. How such an observed trend translates to long-term clinical outcomes for younger Black men remains to be seen.

Physician's Knowledge and Practices Surrounding Low-Dose Aspirin for Preeclampsia Risk Reduction.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths. Up to 60% of maternal deaths associated with preeclampsia may be prevented. Clinical trials have shown that low-dose aspirin reduces preeclampsia up to 30% among women at increased risk. Since 2014, multiple professional societies and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force have released guidelines on the use of low-dose aspirin to reduce the risk of preeclampsia. We aimed to evaluate physician's knowledge and practices surrounding low-dose aspirin for preeclampsia risk reduction. We distributed an anonymous electronic survey to licensed physicians in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas who provide prenatal care, including general obstetrician-gynecologists, maternal fetal medicine subspecialists, and family medicine physicians. The survey consisted of 20 items assessing demographics, provider practices, and knowledge on the use of low-dose aspirin for preeclampsia risk reduction. We received 48 surveys with a response rate of 55%. More than 90% of physicians reported recommending low-dose aspirin for preeclampsia risk reduction, of which 98% correctly identified the dose. Of the physicians recommending aspirin, 83% initiate dosing between 12 and 16 weeks, but only 52% continue it until the day of delivery. Nearly 80% of respondents identified that one high-risk factor for preeclampsia is an indication for prophylaxis, but only 56% identified that two or more moderate risk factors should prompt aspirin recommendation. Despite clear professional guidelines, physicians demonstrated gaps in knowledge and differences in practices. Enhancing screening tools to assess patient's risk of developing preeclampsia and tailored medical education on moderate risk factors are needed to identify patients who may benefit from this intervention. Increasing the use of aspirin in patients at risk is critical given the benefits of low-dose aspirin in the reduction of poor maternal and neonatal outcomes related to preeclampsia. · Low-dose aspirin reduces preeclampsia in patients up to 30%.. · Physicians have gaps in knowledge despite guidelines.. · Following guidelines reduces poor outcomes associated with preeclampsia..

Prevalence of renal and bone risk factors among individuals prescribed oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV

ObjectivesThe only available oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens approved in the United States to prevent HIV infection during the period covered by this study were emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) and emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF). Both agents have similar efficacy, however F/TAF exhibits improved bone and renal health safety endpoints over F/TDF. In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended individuals have access to the most medically appropriate PrEP regimen. To understand the impact of these guidelines, the prevalence of risk factors to renal and bone health was evaluated among individuals prescribed oral PrEP. MethodsThis prevalence study utilized the electronic health records of people prescribed oral PrEP between January 1, 2015 and February 29, 2020. Renal and bone risk factors (age, comorbidities, medication, renal function, and body mass index) were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and National Drug Code (NDC) codes. ResultsAmong 40 621 individuals prescribed oral PrEP, 62% had ≥1 renal risk factor and 68% had ≥1 bone risk factor. Comorbidities were the most frequent (37%) class of renal risk factors. Concomitant medications were the most prominent (46%) class of bone-related risk factors. ConclusionsThe high prevalence of risk factors suggests the importance of their consideration when choosing the most appropriate regimen for individuals who may benefit from PrEP.