Search

Importance: Low-dose aspirin is used for primary cardiovascular disease prevention and may have benefits for colorectal cancer prevention.Objective: To review the benefits and harms of aspirin in primary cardiovascular disease prevention and colorectal cancer prevention to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2021; literature surveillance through January 21, 2022.Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of low-dose aspirin (≤100 mg/d) compared with placebo or no intervention in primary prevention populations.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative synthesis using Peto fixed-effects meta-analysis.Main Outcomes and Measures: Cardiovascular disease events and mortality, all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, major bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke.Results: Eleven RCTs (N = 134 470) and 1 pilot trial (N = 400) of low-dose aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention were included. Low-dose aspirin was associated with a significant decrease in major cardiovascular disease events (odds ratio [OR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]; 11 RCTs [n = 134 470]; I2 = 0%; range in absolute effects, -2.5% to 0.1%). Results for individual cardiovascular disease outcomes were significant, with similar magnitude of benefit. Aspirin was not significantly associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease mortality or all-cause mortality. There was limited trial evidence on benefits for colorectal cancer, with the findings highly variable by length of follow-up and statistically significant only when considering long-term observational follow-up beyond randomized trial periods. Low-dose aspirin was associated with significant increases in total major bleeding (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.32-1.57]; 10 RCTs [n = 133 194]; I2 = 4.7%; range in absolute effects, 0.1% to 1.0%) and in site-specific bleeding, with similar magnitude.Conclusions and Relevance: Low-dose aspirin was associated with small absolute risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and small absolute increases in major bleeding. Colorectal cancer results were less robust and highly variable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and can be modified through lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.Objective: To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and confirmatory blood pressure measurements in adults, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL; surveillance through March 26, 2021.Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies for effectiveness of screening; accuracy studies for screening and confirmatory measurements (ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard); RCTs and nonrandomized controlled intervention studies and observational studies for harms of screening and confirmation.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; meta-analyses and qualitative syntheses.Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality; cardiovascular events; quality of life; sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values; harms of screening.Results: A total of 52 studies (N = 215 534) were identified in this systematic review. One cluster RCT (n = 140 642) of a multicomponent intervention including hypertension screening reported fewer annual cardiovascular-related hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the intervention group compared with the control group (difference, 3.02 per 1000 people; rate ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]). Meta-analysis of 15 studies (n = 11 309) of initial office-based blood pressure screening showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.37-0.70) and specificity of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), with considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Eighteen studies (n = 57 128) of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement modalities were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of 8 office-based confirmation studies (n = 53 183) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.88) and specificity of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42-0.66). Meta-analysis of 4 home-based confirmation studies (n = 1001) showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76-0.90) and a specificity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.48-0.71). Thirteen studies (n = 5150) suggested that screening was associated with no decrement in quality of life or psychological distress; evidence on absenteeism was mixed. Ambulatory blood pressure measurement was associated with temporary sleep disturbance and bruising.Conclusions and Relevance: Screening using office-based blood pressure measurement had major accuracy limitations, including misdiagnosis; however, direct harms of measurement were minimal. Research is needed to determine optimal screening and confirmatory algorithms for clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review to support the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement on screening for carotid artery stenosis summarizes published evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and treatment of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Falls are the most common cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults.Objective: To systematically review literature on the effectiveness and harms of fall prevention interventions in community-dwelling older adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant English-language literature published through August 2016, with ongoing surveillance through February 7, 2018.Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years and older.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction by 2 reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses using the method of DerSimonian and Laird.Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of falls (number of unexpected events in which a person comes to rest on the ground, floor, or lower level), people experiencing 1 or more falls, injurious falls, people experiencing injurious falls, fractures, people experiencing fractures, mortality, hospitalizations, institutionalizations, changes in disability, and treatment harms.Results: Sixty-two randomized clinical trials (N = 35 058) examining 7 fall prevention intervention types were identified. This article focused on the 3 most commonly studied intervention types: multifactorial (customized interventions based on initial comprehensive individualized falls risk assessment) (26 trials [n = 15 506]), exercise (21 trials [n = 7297]), and vitamin D supplementation (7 trials [n = 7531]). Multifactorial intervention trials were associated with a reduction in falls (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.68-0.91]) but were not associated with a reduction in other fall-related morbidity and mortality outcomes. Exercise trials were associated with statistically significant reductions in people experiencing a fall (relative risk, 0.89 [95% 13 CI, 0.81-0.97]) and injurious falls (IRR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.73-0.90]) and with a statistically nonsignificant reduction in falls (IRR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.75-1.00]) but showed no association with mortality. Few exercise trials reported fall-related fractures. Seven heterogeneous trials of vitamin D formulations (with or without calcium) showed mixed results. One trial of annual high-dose cholecalciferol (500 000 IU), which has not been replicated, showed an increase in falls, people experiencing a fall, and injuries, while 1 trial of calcitriol showed a reduction in falls and people experiencing a fall; the remaining 5 trials showed no significant difference in falls, people experiencing a fall, or injuries. Harms of multifactorial and exercise trials were rarely reported but generally included minor musculoskeletal injuries.Conclusions and Relevance: Multifactorial and exercise interventions were associated with fall-related benefit, but evidence was most consistent across multiple fall-related outcomes for exercise. Vitamin D supplementation interventions had mixed results, with a high dose being associated with higher rates of fall-related outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improving patient outcomes in community-based settings is the goal of both the Clinical Translational Science Award program and practice-based quality improvement (QI) programs. Given this common goal, integrating QI and outcomes research is a promising strategy for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical interventions. This article describes the challenges and strengths illuminated by the conduct of a combined research/QI study in a nascent practice-based research network. Challenges include research's exclusion of clinic patients who might benefit from the intervention; QI programs' less uniform approach to intervention implementation; and the need for both academic and clinically relevant products and publications. A major strength is the increased likelihood of both engaging clinical practices in research and developing successful clinical interventions. Required elements for success include identification of enthusiastic clinical research 'champions,' involvement of researchers with clinical experience, and adequate funding to support both research and clinical resources and dissemination. Combined Ql/research projects in the practice-based research environment have the potential to improve and shorten the cycle from good idea to improved clinical outcomes in real-world settings. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 351-355 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]