Search

Objective: Patient engagement is critical to clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. This work presents our approach to ascertaining patients' values and preferences to inform the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional qualitative study of a purposefully sampled Patient Panel using a modified content analytic approach. The study team reviewed text transcripts from the Patient Panel discussion to identify themes and develop a clustered thematic schema. Results: Twenty‐one patients (75% women) participated, with a mean age of 53 years (range 33–73). Patients had one or more SARDs: systemic sclerosis (38%), Sjögren disease (38%), idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (33%), rheumatoid arthritis (24%), and mixed connective tissue disease (10%). We identified 10 themes in 4 thematic clusters: communication, screening and monitoring, treatment goals, and treatment adverse effects. Patients prioritized recognizing ILD symptoms, importance of ILD screening and close monitoring, goals of survival and improving quality of life, and willingness to accept treatment risks provided that there is close communication with providers. Patient representatives shared patients' priorities and insight at the Voting Panel meeting, influencing multiple guideline recommendations. Conclusion: Patient engagement fosters a holistic approach to CPG development, leading to recommendations aiming for the best clinical outcomes while prioritizing outcomes important for patients. The patient‐identified themes played a critical role in ILD guideline development and provide core elements for shared decision‐making as clinicians make management and therapeutic decisions with patients with SARD‐associated ILD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long COVID affects multiple organ systems, with wide variability in symptoms across patients. This scoping review organizes what is known about definitions and models of care for long COVID from the literature and from interviews with a range of key informants. Background: Definitions of long COVID are evolving, and optimal models of care are uncertain. Purpose: To perform a scoping review on definitions of long COVID and provide an overview of care models, including a proposed framework to describe and distinguish models. Data Sources: English-language articles from Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, SocINDEX, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL published between January 2021 and November 2023; gray literature; and discussions with 18 key informants. Study Selection: Publications describing long COVID definitions or models of care, supplemented by models described by key informants. Data Extraction: Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified for accuracy by another reviewer. Data Synthesis: Of 1960 screened citations, 38 were included. Five clinical definitions of long COVID varied with regard to timing since symptom onset and the minimum duration required for diagnosis; 1 additional definition was symptom score–based. Forty-nine long COVID care models were informed by 5 key principles: a core "lead" team, multidisciplinary expertise, comprehensive access to diagnostic and therapeutic services, a patient-centered approach, and providing capacity to meet demand. Seven characteristics provided a framework for distinguishing models: home department or clinical setting, clinical lead, collocation of other specialties, primary care role, population managed, use of teleservices, and whether the model was practice- or systems-based. Using this framework, 10 representative practice-based and 3 systems-based models of care were identified. Limitations: Published literature often lacked key model details, data were insufficient to assess model outcomes, and there was overlap between and variability within models. Conclusion: Definitions of long COVID and care models are evolving. Research is needed to optimize models and evaluate outcomes of different models. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (Protocol posted at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/long-covid-models-care/protocol.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Skin cancer is the most common cancer type and is a major cause of morbidity. Objective: To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from June 1, 2015, through January 7, 2022; surveillance through December 16, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations 15 years or older. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant data from fair- or good-quality studies; results were narratively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Morbidity; mortality; skin cancer stage, precursor lesions, or lesion thickness at detection; harms of screening. Results: Twenty studies in 29 articles were included (N = 6 053 411). Direct evidence on screening effectiveness was from 3 nonrandomized analyses of 2 population-based skin cancer screening programs in Germany (n = 1 791 615) and suggested no melanoma mortality benefit at the population level over 4 to 10 years' follow-up. Six studies (n = 2 935 513) provided inconsistent evidence on the association between clinician skin examination and lesion thickness or stage at diagnosis. Compared with usual care, routine clinician skin examination was not associated with increased detection of skin cancer or precursor lesions (5 studies) or stage at melanoma detection (3 studies). Evidence on the association between clinician skin examination and lesion thickness at detection was inconsistent (3 studies). Nine studies (n = 1 326 051) found a consistent positive association between more advanced stage at melanoma detection and increasing risk of melanoma-associated and all-cause mortality. Two studies (n = 232) found little to no persistent cosmetic or psychosocial harms associated with screening. Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial nonrandomized evidence base suggests a clear association between earlier stage at skin cancer detection and decreased mortality risk. However, nonrandomized studies suggest little to no melanoma mortality benefit associated with skin cancer screening with visual skin examination in adolescents or adults and no association between routine clinician skin examination and earlier stage at melanoma detection. Evidence is inconsistent regarding whether clinician skin examination is associated with thinner melanoma lesions at detection. This systematic review to support the 2023 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement on screening for skin cancer summarizes published evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for skin cancer in individuals 15 years or older. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death in the US, and vitamin and mineral supplementation has been proposed to help prevent these conditions.Objective: To review the benefits and harms of vitamin and mineral supplementation in healthy adults to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records only), Cochrane Library, and Embase (January 2013 to February 1, 2022); prior reviews.Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of vitamin or mineral use among adults without cardiovascular disease or cancer and with no known vitamin or mineral deficiencies; observational cohort studies examining serious harms.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative pooling methods appropriate for rare events were used for most analyses.Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, cardiovascular disease events, cancer incidence, serious harms.Results: Eighty-four studies (N=739 803) were included. In pooled analyses, multivitamin use was significantly associated with a lower incidence of any cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87-0.99]; 4 RCTs [n=48 859]; absolute risk difference [ARD] range among adequately powered trials, -0.2% to -1.2%) and lung cancer (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.95]; 2 RCTs [n=36 052]; ARD, 0.2%). However, the evidence for multivitamins had important limitations. Beta carotene (with or without vitamin A) was significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; 4 RCTs [n=94 830]; ARD range, -0.1% to 0.6%) and cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.02-1.19]; 5 RCTs [n=94 506] ARD range, -0.8% to 0.8%). Vitamin D use was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91-1.02]; 27 RCTs [n=117 082]), cardiovascular disease (eg, composite cardiovascular disease event outcome: OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.05]; 7 RCTs [n=74 925]), or cancer outcomes (eg, any cancer incidence: OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; 19 RCTs [n=86 899]). Vitamin E was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.97-1.07]; 9 RCTs [n=107 772]), cardiovascular disease events (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04]; 4 RCTs [n=62 136]), or cancer incidence (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; 5 RCTs [n=76 777]). Evidence for benefit of other supplements was equivocal, minimal, or absent. Limited evidence suggested some supplements may be associated with higher risk of serious harms (hip fracture [vitamin A], hemorrhagic stroke [vitamin E], and kidney stones [vitamin C, calcium]).Conclusions and Relevance: Vitamin and mineral supplementation was associated with little or no benefit in preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death, with the exception of a small benefit for cancer incidence with multivitamin use. Beta carotene was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and other harmful outcomes in persons at high risk of lung cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease., Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation., Results: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs., Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs., (© 2024 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs)., Methods: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations., Results: Thirty-five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first-line SARD-ILD treatment, treatment of SARD-ILD progression despite first-line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis-ILD as a first-line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first-line ILD treatment in all other SARDs., Conclusion: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs., (© 2024 American College of Rheumatology.)