The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder: Synopsis of the 2023 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

Description: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) worked together to revise the 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. This article summarizes the 2023 clinical practice guideline (CPG) and its development process, focusing on assessments and treatments for which evidence was sufficient to support a recommendation for or against. Methods: Subject experts from both departments developed 12 key questions and reviewed the published literature after a systematic search using the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing of outcomes measurement, and setting) method. The evidence was then evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. Recommendations were made after consensus was reached; they were based on quality and strength of evidence and informed by other factors, including feasibility and patient perspectives. Once the draft was peer reviewed by an external group of experts and their inputs were incorporated, the final document was completed. Recommendations: The revised CPG includes 34 recommendations in the following 5 topic areas: assessment and diagnosis, prevention, treatment, treatment of nightmares, and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with co-occurring conditions. Six recommendations on PTSD treatment were rated as strong. The CPG recommends use of specific manualized psychotherapies over pharmacotherapy; prolonged exposure, cognitive processing therapy, or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing psychotherapy; paroxetine, sertraline, or venlafaxine; and secure video teleconferencing to deliver recommended psychotherapy when that therapy has been validated for use with video teleconferencing or when other options are unavailable. The CPG also recommends against use of benzodiazepines, cannabis, or cannabis-derived products. Providers are encouraged to use this guideline to support evidence-based, patient-centered care and shared decision making to optimize individuals’ health outcomes and quality of life.

One Hundred Years of Colposcopy: Reconciling Its Auschwitz Past

The centennial anniversary of Hans Hinselmann’s initial publication describing colposcopy is approaching. In the 100 years since the inventor’s seminal paper, colposcopy has become indispensable in the diagnosis and management of cervical cancer. It remains central in diagnosing precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions and has dramatically reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality since the mid-20th century. Previous descriptions of colposcopy’s development in medical literature obscure the dark history of its earliest days, arising within the center of German Nazism. The pioneers of colposcopy benefited from the Nazi government’s public health focus and exploited the environment fostered by the Nazi medical establishment. They made use of the apparatus of the Auschwitz concentration camp to position colposcopy for expanded postwar adoption, ultimately accomplishing Hinselmann’s stated goal that colposcopy become a routine part of gynecologic examination and care. This historical exposition clarifies the Nazi past of colposcopy, highlights the important role that unethical treatment of victims of Auschwitz played in cementing this procedure within standard cervical cancer screening programs globally, and offers steps to reckon with this tragic legacy.

The Mifepristone Litigation: Untangling the Implications of the Fifth Circuit’s Decision for Abortion Access and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

In August 2023, a federal appeals court issued an opinion in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA, a case wherein a group of antiabortion medical organizations and physicians have challenged U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and regulation of mifepristone. This opinion contained some good news for the FDA, drug makers, and patients: the appeals court declined to halt the marketing of mifepristone altogether (as the trial court judge would have). But the court also decided that the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions expanding the indication for mifepristone, lowering the drug’s dose, and loosening restrictions on its distribution and use were likely unlawful, and it thus affirmed the trial court’s order staying these actions. In this article, we explain key aspects of the opinion to health care professionals and consider the ways in which the appeals court’s reasoning and conclusions, if followed by the Supreme Court, could undermine abortion access and public health going forward.

Lessons Learned While Grieving

Ethical Guidance for Physicians and Health Care Institutions on Grateful Patient Fundraising: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

Physician solicitation of charitable contributions from patients—also known among other things as grateful patient fundraising—raises significant ethical concerns. These include pressure on patients to donate and the effects of this on the patient–physician relationship, potential expectations of donor patients for treatment that is not indicated or preferential care, justice and fairness issues, disclosure and use of confidential patient information for nontreatment purposes, and conflicts of interest. The patient–physician relationship and knowledge of the patient’s medical history, clinical status, personal information, and financial circumstances are some of the reasons development and administrative officials might see physicians as strong potential fundraisers. But those are among the reasons grateful patient fundraising is ethically problematic. This American College of Physicians position paper explores these issues and offers guidance.

Association of Low Glomerular Filtration Rate With Adverse Outcomes at Older Age in a Large Population With Routinely Measured Cystatin C

Background: The commonly accepted threshold of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to define chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. This threshold is based partly on associations between estimated GFR (eGFR) and the frequency of adverse outcomes. The association is weaker in older adults, which has created disagreement about the appropriateness of the threshold for these persons. In addition, the studies measuring these associations included relatively few outcomes and estimated GFR on the basis of creatinine level (eGFRcr), which may be less accurate in older adults. Objective: To evaluate associations in older adults between eGFRcr versus eGFR based on creatinine and cystatin C levels (eGFRcr-cys) and 8 outcomes. Design: Population-based cohort study. Setting: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010 to 2019. Participants: 82 154 participants aged 65 years or older with outpatient creatinine and cystatin C testing. Measurements: Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and kidney failure with replacement therapy (KFRT); incidence rate ratios for recurrent hospitalizations, infection, myocardial infarction or stroke, heart failure, and acute kidney injury. Results: The associations between eGFRcr-cys and outcomes were monotonic, but most associations for eGFRcr were U-shaped. In addition, eGFRcr-cys was more strongly associated with outcomes than eGFRcr. For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for 60 versus 80 mL/min/1.73 m2 for all-cause mortality were 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3) for eGFRcr-cys and 1.0 (CI, 0.9 to 1.0) for eGFRcr, and for KFRT they were 2.6 (CI, 1.2 to 5.8) and 1.4 (CI, 0.7 to 2.8), respectively. Similar findings were observed in subgroups, including those with a urinary albumin–creatinine ratio below 30 mg/g. Limitation: No GFR measurements. Conclusion: Compared with low eGFRcr in older patients, low eGFRcr-cys was more strongly associated with adverse outcomes and the associations were more uniform. Primary Funding Source: Swedish Research Council, National Institutes of Health, and Dutch Kidney Foundation.

Modernizing the United States’ Public Health Infrastructure: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

The United States’ public health sector plays a crucial role in preventing illness and promoting health. Public health drove massive gains in life expectancy during the 20th century by supporting vaccination campaigns, promoting motor vehicle safety, and preventing and treating tobacco use. However, public health is underfunded and underappreciated, forcing the field to do more with fewer resources. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates its 2012 policy recommendations on strengthening the nation’s public health infrastructure. ACP calls for effective coordination of public health activities, robust and stable year-to-year funding of public health services, a renewed and well-supported public health workforce, action to address health-related dis- and misinformation, modernized public health data systems, and greater coordination between public health and medical sectors.

Multi-cancer Early Detection Tests, Primary Care, and Shared Decision Making

Double-Blind

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians

An update is available for this article. This article has been corrected. The original version of the article and supplement (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Purpose: To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. Data Sources: Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori–defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments. Data Synthesis: The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and casirivimab–imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab–imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab and remdesivir may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir–ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo. Limitation: Many outcomes had few events and small samples. Conclusion: Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited. Primary Funding Source: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440)