Comparative Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Renal Artery Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 165, No 9

Background: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is associated with high blood pressure (BP), decreased kidney function, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and death. Purpose: To compare benefits and harms of percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty with stent placement (PTRAS) versus medical therapy alone in adults with ARAS. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1993 to 16 March 2016; gray literature; and prior systematic reviews. Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); nonrandomized, comparative studies (NRCSs); single-group studies; and selected case reports that reported all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, RRT, kidney function, BP, and adverse events. Data Extraction: Six researchers extracted data on design, interventions, outcomes, and study quality into a Web-based database. Data Synthesis: Eighty-three studies met eligibility criteria. In 5 of 7 RCTs, PTRAS and medical therapy led to similar BP control in patients with ARAS, and no RCTs showed statistically significant differences in kidney function, mortality, RRT, cardiovascular events, or pulmonary edema. Eight NRCSs had more variable results, finding mostly no significant differences in mortality, RRT, or cardiovascular events but heterogeneous effects on kidney function and BP. Procedure-related adverse events were rare, and medication-related adverse events were not reported. Two RCTs found no patient characteristics that were associated with outcomes with either PTRAS or medical therapy. Single-group studies found various but inconsistent factors that predict outcomes. Case reports provided examples of clinical improvement after PTRAS in patients with acute decompensation. Limitation: Limited clinical applicability and power in RCTs, and possible publication bias and lack of adjusted analyses in NRCSs. Conclusion: The strength of evidence regarding the relative benefits and harms of PTRAS versus medical therapy alone for patients with ARAS is low. Studies have generally focused on patients with less severe ARAS. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Still Life: Room 8005

Why a Hospital Needs a Waterfall

Screening for Dyslipidemia in Younger Adults: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Background: Dyslipidemia may occur in younger adults (defined as persons aged 21 to 39 years) and is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Screening might identify younger adults with asymptomatic dyslipidemia who may benefit from lipid-lowering therapies. Purpose: To update the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force review on dyslipidemia screening in younger adults. Data Sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and MEDLINE through May 2016, and reference lists. Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case–control studies on screening for or treatment of asymptomatic dyslipidemia in adults aged 21 to 39 years. Data Extraction: The plan was for 1 investigator to abstract data and a second to check their accuracy, and for 2 investigators to independently assess study quality; however, no studies met the inclusion criteria. Data Synthesis: No study evaluated the effects of lipid screening versus no screening, treatment versus no treatment, or delayed versus earlier treatment on clinical outcomes in younger adults. In addition, no study evaluated the diagnostic yield of alternative screening strategies (such as targeted screening of persons with a family history of hyperlipidemia vs. general screening) in younger adults. Limitation: No direct relevant evidence. Conclusion: Direct evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for or treatment of dyslipidemia in younger adults remains unavailable. Estimating the potential effects of screening for dyslipidemia in this population requires extrapolation from studies performed in older adults. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Should We Offer Medication to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 165, No 3

In November 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a guideline on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer in women. Although mammography can detect early cases, it cannot prevent development of breast cancer. Tamoxifen and raloxifene are selective estrogen receptor modulators that have been shown to reduce the risk for estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer and are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication. However, neither medication reduces the risk for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer or all-cause mortality. The Task Force concluded that postmenopausal women with an estimated 5-year risk for breast cancer of 3% or greater will probably have more net benefit than harm and recommends that clinicians engage in shared, informed decision making about these medications. The American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a practice guideline on use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer in 2013. It recommends that women aged 35 years or older at increased risk, defined as a 5-year absolute risk for breast cancer of 1.66% or greater, discuss breast cancer prevention medications with their primary care practitioner. The Society includes the aromatase inhibitor exemestane in addition to tamoxifen and raloxifene as a breast cancer prevention medication, although exemestane is not FDA approved for this indication. Here, an oncologist and an internist discuss how they would balance these recommendations and what they would suggest for an individual patient.

Complementary Efforts Make for Efficient Research

Continued Statin Prescriptions After Adverse Reactions and Patient Outcomes: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 167, No 4

Background: Many patients discontinue statin treatment, often after having a possible adverse reaction. The risks and benefits of continued statin therapy after an adverse reaction are not known. Objective: To examine the relationship between continuation of statin therapy (any prescription within 12 months after an adverse reaction) and clinical outcomes. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Primary care practices affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. Participants: Patients with a presumed adverse reaction to a statin between 2000 and 2011. Measurements: Information on adverse reactions to statins was obtained from structured electronic medical record data or natural-language processing of narrative provider notes. The primary composite outcome was time to a cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction or stroke) or death. Results: Most (81%) of the adverse reactions to statins were identified from the text of electronic provider notes. Among 28 266 study patients, 19 989 (70.7%) continued receiving statin prescriptions after the adverse reaction. Four years after the presumed adverse event, the cumulative incidence of the composite primary outcome was 12.2% for patients with continued statin prescriptions, compared with 13.9% for those without them (difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 0.8% to 2.7%]; P < 0.001). In a secondary analysis of 7604 patients for whom a different statin was prescribed after the adverse reaction, 2014 (26.5%) had a documented adverse reaction to the second statin, but 1696 (84.2%) of those patients continued receiving statin prescriptions. Limitations: The risk for recurrent adverse reactions to statins could not be established for the entire sample. It was also not possible to determine whether patients actually took the statins. Conclusion: Continued statin prescriptions after an adverse reaction were associated with a lower incidence of death and cardiovascular events. Primary Funding Source: Chinese National Key Program of Clinical Science, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and Young Scientific Research Fund of Peking Union Medical College Hospital.

Targeting Functional Decline in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 166, No 3

Background: Alzheimer disease results in progressive functional decline, leading to loss of independence. Objective: To determine whether collaborative care plus 2 years of home-based occupational therapy delays functional decline. Design: Randomized, controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01314950) Setting: Urban public health system. Patients: 180 community-dwelling participants with Alzheimer disease and their informal caregivers. Intervention: All participants received collaborative care for dementia. Patients in the intervention group also received in-home occupational therapy delivered in 24 sessions over 2 years. Measurements: The primary outcome measure was the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Group Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS ADL); performance-based measures included the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Short Portable Sarcopenia Measure (SPSM). Results: At baseline, clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between groups; the mean Mini-Mental State Examination score for both groups was 19 (SD, 7). The intervention group received a median of 18 home visits from the study occupational therapists. In both groups, ADCS ADL scores declined over 24 months. At the primary end point of 24 months, ADCS ADL scores did not differ between groups (mean difference, 2.34 [95% CI, −5.27 to 9.96]). We also could not definitively demonstrate between-group differences in mean SPPB or SPSM values. Limitation: The results of this trial are indeterminate and do not rule out potential clinically important effects of the intervention. Conclusion: The authors could not definitively demonstrate whether the addition of 2 years of in-home occupational therapy to a collaborative care management model slowed the rate of functional decline among persons with Alzheimer disease. This trial underscores the burden undertaken by caregivers as they provide care for family members with Alzheimer disease and the difficulty in slowing functional decline. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.

Injecting Facts Into the Heated Debates Over Medicaid Expansion

What Stands in the Way of Making Hepatitis B and C Rare Diseases in the United States?