Progress in Chronic Disease: Self-management for Patients With Epilepsy

Insights on the Natural History of Adrenal Incidentalomas

Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors: Lack of a Complete History Delays Diagnosis

On 15 May 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that administration of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors could lead to ketoacidosis in patients with diabetes mellitus. This announcement came more than 2 years after the FDA's first approval of an SGLT2 inhibitor, although the phenomenon had been known for more than 125 years. Luminaries of diabetes research (including Josef von Mering, Frederick Allen, I. Arthur Mirsky, and George Cahill) had described ketosis and ketoacidosis induced by administration of the phytochemical phlorizin, the prototypical SGLT inhibitor, as well as in patients with familial renal glucosuria, a condition that is considered a natural model of SGLT2 inhibition. Neither government regulators nor manufacturers of SGLT2 inhibitors evinced an awareness of this extensive historical record. The absence of historical inquiry delayed notice of ketoacidosis as an adverse reaction, which could have reduced the burden of illness from these drugs.

Cases in Precision Medicine: APOL1 and Genetic Testing in the Evaluation of Chronic Kidney Disease and Potential Transplant

This article discusses potential indications for genetic testing in an African American patient with chronic kidney disease who is being evaluated for a kidney transplant. Two known risk variants in the APOL1 (apolipoprotein L1) gene predispose to kidney disease and are found almost exclusively in persons of African ancestry. APOL1 risk variants are considered, including whether clinicians should incorporate genetic testing in the screening process for living kidney donors. In addition to APOL1 testing, the role of diagnostic exome sequencing in evaluating potential transplant recipients and donors with a positive family history of kidney disease is discussed.

Health-Related Values and Preferences Regarding Meat Consumption: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 10

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: A person's meat consumption is often determined by their values and preferences. Purpose: To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Abstracts, International System for Agricultural Science and Technology, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts were searched from inception to July 2018 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting adults' health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data Synthesis: Data were synthesized into narrative form, and summaries were tabulated and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Of 19 172 initial citations, 41 quantitative studies (38 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 5 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) and 13 qualitative studies (10 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 4 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported that omnivores enjoy eating meat, 18 reported that these persons consider meat an essential component of a healthy diet, and 7 reported that they believe they lack the skills needed to prepare satisfactory meals without meat. Omnivores are generally unwilling to change their meat consumption. The certainty of evidence was low for both “reasons for meat consumption” and “willingness to reduce meat consumption in the face of undesirable health effects.” Limitation: Limited generalizability of findings to lower-income countries, low-certainty evidence for willingness to reduce meat consumption, and limited applicability to specific types of meat (red and processed meat). Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence suggests that omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42018088854)

Not Reporting Results of a Clinical Trial Is Academic Misconduct

Life-Gained–Based Versus Risk-Based Selection of Smokers for Lung Cancer Screening

Background: Although risk-based selection of ever-smokers for screening could prevent more lung cancer deaths than screening according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines, it preferentially selects older ever-smokers with shorter life expectancies due to comorbidities. Objective: To compare selection of ever-smokers for screening based on gains in life expectancy versus lung cancer risk. Design: Cohort analyses and model-based projections. Setting: U.S. population of ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years. Participants: 130 964 National Health Interview Survey participants, representing about 60 million U.S. ever-smokers during 1997 to 2015. Intervention: Annual computed tomography (CT) screening for 3 years versus no screening. Measurements: Estimated number of lung cancer deaths averted and life-years gained after development of a mortality model. Results: Using the calibrated and validated mortality model in U.S. ever-smokers aged 40 to 84 years and selecting 8.3 million ever-smokers to match the number selected by the USPSTF criteria in 2013 to 2015, the analysis estimated that life-gained–based selection would increase the total life expectancy from CT screening (633 400 vs. 607 800 years) but prevent fewer lung cancer deaths (52 600 vs. 55 000) compared with risk-based selection. The 1.56 million persons selected by the life-gained–based strategy but not the risk-based strategy were younger (mean age, 59 vs. 75 years) and had fewer comorbidities (mean, 0.75 vs. 3.7). Limitation: Estimates are model-based and assume implementation of lung cancer screening with short-term effectiveness similar to that from trials. Conclusion: Life-gained–based selection could maximize the benefits of lung cancer screening in the U.S. population by including ever-smokers who have both high lung cancer risk and long life expectancy. Primary Funding Source: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Should Out-of-Office Monitoring Be Performed for Detecting White Coat Hypertension?

Personalized Prediction of Cardiovascular Benefits and Bleeding Harms From Aspirin for Primary Prevention: A Benefit–Harm Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 8

Background: Whether the benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) outweigh its bleeding harms in some patients is unclear. Objective: To identify persons without CVD for whom aspirin would probably result in a net benefit. Design: Individualized benefit–harm analysis based on sex-specific risk scores and estimates of the proportional effect of aspirin on CVD and major bleeding from a 2019 meta-analysis. Setting: New Zealand primary care. Participants: 245 028 persons (43.6% women) aged 30 to 79 years without established CVD who had their CVD risk assessed between 2012 and 2016. Measurements: The net effect of aspirin was calculated for each participant by subtracting the number of CVD events likely to be prevented (CVD risk score × proportional effect of aspirin on CVD risk) from the number of major bleeds likely to be caused (major bleed risk score × proportional effect of aspirin on major bleeding risk) over 5 years. Results: 2.5% of women and 12.1% of men were likely to have a net benefit from aspirin treatment for 5 years if 1 CVD event was assumed to be equivalent in severity to 1 major bleed, increasing to 21.4% of women and 40.7% of men if 1 CVD event was assumed to be equivalent to 2 major bleeds. Net benefit subgroups had higher baseline CVD risk, higher levels of most established CVD risk factors, and lower levels of bleeding-specific risk factors than net harm subgroups. Limitations: Risk scores and effect estimates were uncertain. Effects of aspirin on cancer outcomes were not considered. Applicability to non–New Zealand populations was not assessed. Conclusion: For some persons without CVD, aspirin is likely to result in net benefit. Primary Funding Source: Health Research Council of New Zealand.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 3

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a common diagnosis in the United States and other developed countries, has been increasing in prevalence. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recently published updated practice guidelines for diagnosing and managing NAFLD, including the following recommendations: Routine screening for NAFLD in high-risk groups is not advised because of uncertainties surrounding test and treatment options, along with a lack of knowledge about cost-effectiveness and long-term benefits. Noninvasive studies, including biomarkers from laboratory tests and liver stiffness measured through elastography, are clinically useful tools for identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD. Liver biopsy should be considered in patients with NAFLD who are at increased risk for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or advanced fibrosis. Weight loss of at least 3% to 5% generally reduces NASH, but greater weight loss (7% to 10%) is needed to improve most histopathologic features, including fibrosis. Pharmacologic therapies (such as pioglitazone and vitamin E) should be considered only in patients with biopsy-proven NASH. Patients with NAFLD should not consume heavy amounts of alcohol, although insufficient data exist to provide advice about other levels of alcohol use. Here, 2 clinicians with expertise in this area debate whether to screen for NAFLD in primary care, how to monitor patients with NAFLD, and what interventions should be used to manage this condition.