Clinical Information Search

Search Results for "chronic back pain management"

These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.

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)

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.

Would You Recommend Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening for This Patient?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 11

Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer type in the United States overall, accounting for 9.5% of new cancer cases and 5% of cancer deaths. The goal of prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening is to identify early-stage disease that can be treated successfully. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reviewed evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening and treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. It found that PSA-based screening in men aged 55 to 69 years prevents approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over 13 years per 1000 men screened and 3 cases of metastatic cancer per 1000 men screened, with no reduction in all-cause mortality. No benefit was found for PSA-based screening in men aged 70 years and older. On the basis of its review, the USPSTF concluded that the decision for men aged 55 to 69 years to have PSA-based screening should be an individual one and should include a discussion of the potential benefits and harms. Here, 2 experts—an internist and a urologist—discuss the key points of a shared decision-making conversation about PSA-based prostate cancer screening, the PSA-based screening strategy that optimizes benefit and minimizes harm, and the PSA threshold at which they would recommend further diagnostic testing.

Predicting 6-Month Mortality for Older Adults Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 172, No 1

Background: Older adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have higher prevalence of functional impairments, including deficits in cognition, strength, and sensory domains, than their younger counterparts. Objective: To develop and evaluate the prognostic utility of a risk model for 6-month post-AMI mortality in older adults that incorporates information about functional impairments. Design: Prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01755052). Setting: 94 hospitals throughout the United States. Participants: 3006 persons aged 75 years or older who were hospitalized with AMI and discharged alive. Measurements: Functional impairments were assessed during hospitalization via direct measurement (cognition, mobility, muscle strength) or self-report (vision, hearing). Clinical variables associated with mortality in prior risk models were ascertained by chart review. Seventy-two candidate variables were selected for inclusion, and backward selection and Bayesian model averaging were used to derive (n = 2004 participants) and validate (n = 1002 participants) a model for 6-month mortality. Results: Participants' mean age was 81.5 years, 44.4% were women, and 10.5% were nonwhite. There were 266 deaths (8.8%) within 6 months. The final risk model included 15 variables, 4 of which were not included in prior risk models: hearing impairment, mobility impairment, weight loss, and lower patient-reported health status. The model was well calibrated (Hosmer–Lemeshow P > 0.05) and showed good discrimination (area under the curve for the validation cohort = 0.84). Adding functional impairments significantly improved model performance, as evidenced by category-free net reclassification improvement indices of 0.21 (P = 0.008) for hearing impairment and 0.26 (P < 0.001) for mobility impairment. Limitation: The model was not externally validated. Conclusion: A newly developed model for 6-month post-AMI mortality in older adults was well calibrated and had good discriminatory ability. This model may be useful in decision making at hospital discharge. Primary Funding Source: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

To What Target Hemoglobin A1c Level Would You Treat This Patient With Type 2 Diabetes?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 7

In the United States, 9.4% of all adults—and 25% of those older than 65 years—have diabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness and end-stage renal disease and contributes to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. The management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a common and important activity in primary care internal medicine practice. Measurement of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) provides an estimate of mean blood sugar levels and glycemic control. The optimal HbA1c target level among various persons with T2D is a subject of controversy. Guidelines regarding HbA1c targets have yielded differing recommendations. In 2018, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published a guideline on HbA1c targets for nonpregnant adults with T2D. In addition to a recommendation to individualize HbA1c target levels, the ACP proposed a level between 7% and 8% for most patients. The ACP also advised deintensification of therapy for patients who have an HbA1c level lower than 6.5% and avoidance of HbA1c-targeted treatment for patients with a life expectancy of less than 10 years. This guidance contrasts with a recommendation from the American Diabetes Association to aim for HbA1c levels less than 7% for many nonpregnant adults and to consider a target of 6.5% if it can be achieved safely. Here, 2 experts, a diabetologist and a general internist, discuss how to apply the divergent guideline recommendations to a patient with long-standing T2D and a current HbA1c level of 7.8%.

Policy Recommendations for Pharmacy Benefit Managers to Stem the Escalating Costs of Prescription Drugs: A Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

Recent discussions about the increasing prices of prescription drugs have focused on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), third-party intermediaries for various types of employers and government purchasers who negotiate drug prices in health plans and thus play a crucial role in determining the amount millions of Americans pay for medications. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians expands on its position paper from 2016 by offering additional recommendations to improve transparency in the PBM industry and highlighting the need for reliable, timely, and relevant information on prescription drug pricing for physicians and patients.