Benefits and Risks Associated With Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention in Old and Very Old Adults: Real-World Evidence From a Target Trial Emulation Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 6

Background: There is little consensus on using statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and all-cause mortality in adults aged 75 years or older due to the underrepresentation of this population in randomized controlled trials. Objective: To investigate the benefits and risks of using statins for primary prevention in old (aged 75 to 84 years) and very old (aged ≥85 years) adults. Design: Sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts initiating versus not initiating statin therapy. Setting: Territory-wide public electronic medical records in Hong Kong. Participants: Persons aged 75 years or older who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included. Participants with preexisting diagnosed CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease (CHD), were excluded from the analysis. Among 69 981 eligible persons aged 75 to 84 years and 14 555 persons aged 85 years or older, 41 884 and 9457 had history of CHD equivalents (for example, diabetes) in the respective age groups. Intervention: Initiation of statin therapy. Measurements: Incidence of major CVDs (stroke, myocardial infarction, or heart failure), all-cause mortality, and major adverse events (myopathies and liver dysfunction). Results: Of 42 680 matched person-trials aged 75 to 84 years and 5390 matched person-trials aged 85 years or older (average follow-up, 5.3 years), 9676 and 1600 of them developed CVDs in each age group, respectively. Risk reduction for overall CVD incidence was found for initiating statin therapy in adults aged 75 to 84 years (5-year standardized risk reduction, 1.20% [95% CI, 0.57% to 1.82%] in the intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis; 5.00% [CI, 1.11% to 8.89%] in the per protocol [PP] analysis) and in those aged 85 years or older (ITT: 4.44% [CI, 1.40% to 7.48%]; PP: 12.50% [CI, 4.33% to 20.66%]). No significantly increased risks for myopathies and liver dysfunction were found in both age groups. Limitation: Unmeasured confounders, such as lifestyle factors of diet and physical activity, may exist. Conclusion: Reduction for CVDs after statin therapy were seen in patients aged 75 years or older without increasing risks for severe adverse effects. Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older. Primary Funding Source: Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Understanding How Older Adults Use the U.S. Health Care System: From Measurement to Meaning

Excessive Alcohol Use and Alcohol Use Disorders: A Policy Brief of the American College of Physicians

Alcohol is used by more people in the United States than tobacco, electronic nicotine delivery systems, or illicit drugs. Several health conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and liver disease, are associated with excessive alcohol use and alcohol use disorder. Nearly 30 million people aged 12 years or older in the United States reported past-year alcohol use disorder in 2022, but—despite its prevalence—alcohol use disorder is undertreated. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians outlines the health effects of excessive alcohol use and alcohol use disorder, calls for policy changes to increase the availability of treatment of alcohol use disorder and excessive alcohol use, and recommends alcohol-related public health interventions.

Diagnostic Strategy Using Color Doppler Ultrasound of Temporal Arteries in Patients With High Clinical Suspicion of Giant Cell Arteritis: A Prospective Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 6

Background: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most prevalent systemic vasculitis in people older than 50 years. Any delay in diagnosis impairs patients' quality of life and can lead to permanent damage, particularly vision loss. Objective: To evaluate a diagnostic strategy for GCA using color Doppler ultrasound of the temporal artery as a first-line diagnostic test, temporal artery biopsy (TAB) as a secondary test, and physician expertise as the reference method. Design: Prospective multicenter study with a 2-year follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02703922) Setting: Patients were referred by their general practitioner or ophthalmologist to a physician with extensive experience in GCA diagnosis and management in one of the participating centers: 4 general and 2 university hospitals. Patients: 165 patients with high clinical suspicion of GCA, aged 79 years (IQR, 73 to 85 years). Intervention: The diagnostic procedure was ultrasound, performed less than 7 days after initiation of corticosteroid therapy. Only ultrasound-negative patients underwent TAB. Measurements: Bilateral temporal halo signs seen on ultrasound were considered positive. Ultrasound and TAB results were compared with physician-diagnosed GCA based on clinical findings and other imaging. Results: Diagnosis of GCA was confirmed in 44%, 17%, and 21% of patients by ultrasound, TAB, and clinical expertise and/or other imaging tests, respectively. Their diagnosis remained unchanged at 1 month, and 2 years for those with available follow-up data. An alternative diagnosis was made in 18% of patients. The proportion of ultrasound-positive patients among patients with a clinical GCA diagnosis was 54% (95% CI, 45% to 62%). Limitation: Small sample size, no blinding of ultrasound and TAB results, lack of an objective gold-standard comparator, and single diagnostic strategy. Conclusion: By using ultrasound of the temporal arteries as a first-line diagnostic tool in patients with high clinical suspicion of GCA, further diagnostic tests for patients with positive ultrasound were avoided. Primary Funding Source: Tender “Recherche CH-CHU Poitou-Charentes 2014.”

Weighing In on the Body Mass Index: Addressing Criticisms and Embracing Purpose

Sensitivity and Specificity of Using GPT-3.5 Turbo Models for Title and Abstract Screening in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Background: Systematic reviews are performed manually despite the exponential growth of scientific literature. Objective: To investigate the sensitivity and specificity of GPT-3.5 Turbo, from OpenAI, as a single reviewer, for title and abstract screening in systematic reviews. Design: Diagnostic test accuracy study. Setting: Unannotated bibliographic databases from 5 systematic reviews representing 22 665 citations. Participants: None. Measurements: A generic prompt framework to instruct GPT to perform title and abstract screening was designed. The output of the model was compared with decisions from authors under 2 rules. The first rule balanced sensitivity and specificity, for example, to act as a second reviewer. The second rule optimized sensitivity, for example, to reduce the number of citations to be manually screened. Results: Under the balanced rule, sensitivities ranged from 81.1% to 96.5% and specificities ranged from 25.8% to 80.4%. Across all reviews, GPT identified 7 of 708 citations (1%) missed by humans that should have been included after full-text screening at the cost of 10 279 of 22 665 false-positive recommendations (45.3%) that would require reconciliation during the screening process. Under the sensitive rule, sensitivities ranged from 94.6% to 99.8% and specificities ranged from 2.2% to 46.6%. Limiting manual screening to citations not ruled out by GPT could reduce the number of citations to screen from 127 of 6334 (2%) to 1851 of 4077 (45.4%), at the cost of missing from 0 to 1 of 26 citations (3.8%) at the full-text level. Limitations: Time needed to fine-tune prompt. Retrospective nature of the study, convenient sample of 5 systematic reviews, and GPT performance sensitive to prompt development and time. Conclusion: The GPT-3.5 Turbo model may be used as a second reviewer for title and abstract screening, at the cost of additional work to reconcile added false positives. It also showed potential to reduce the number of citations before screening by humans, at the cost of missing some citations at the full-text level. Primary Funding Source: None.

The Effect of Open-Label Semaglutide on Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Steatotic Liver Disease in People With HIV

Little Miracles

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist

Background: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. Objective: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. Design: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. Setting: International collaboration. Participants: 44 experts. Measurements: Consensus on checklist items. Results: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization’s guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization’s policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. Limitation: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. Conclusion: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. Primary Funding Source: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2024