Annals of Internal Medicine最新文献

Background: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are the most widely prescribed moderate- to high-intensity statins. However, evidence on their efficacy and safety during actual use is limited.

Objective: To compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin.

Design: Active comparator cohort study using target trial emulation.

Setting: The China Renal Data System (CRDS) and UK Biobank (UKB) databases.

Participants: Adults newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin.

Measurements: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards regressions were used after 1:1 multilevel propensity score matching.

Results: Among the 285 680 eligible participants in both databases, 6-year all-cause mortality was lower for rosuvastatin than for atorvastatin (2.57 vs. 2.83 per 100 person-years in the CRDS database and 0.66 vs. 0.90 per 100 person-years in the UKB database), with differences in cumulative incidence of -1.03% (95% CI, -1.44% to -0.46%) in the CRDS database and -1.38% (CI, -2.50% to -0.21%) in the UKB database. For secondary outcomes in both databases, rosuvastatin conferred lower risks for major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse liver outcomes. In the UKB database, the risk for development of type 2 diabetes mellitus was higher with rosuvastatin, and the 2 medications carried similar risks for development of chronic kidney disease and other statin-related adverse effects.

Limitation: Possible residual confounding.

Conclusion: This study found differences in risks for some important outcomes associated with rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. The differences were relatively small, and many did not meet traditional standards for statistical significance. Further research is needed to understand whether these findings can be used with confidence in clinical practice.

Primary funding source: National Key R&D Program of China and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Description: Headache medicine and therapeutics evidence have been rapidly expanding and evolving since the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of headache. Therefore, the CPG was revised in 2023, earlier than the standard 5-year cycle. This article reviews the 2023 CPG recommendations relevant to primary care clinicians for treatment and prevention of migraine and tension-type headache (TTH).

Methods: Subject experts from the VA and the DoD developed 12 key questions, which guided a systematic search using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After reviewing evidence from 5 databases published between 6 March 2019 and 16 August 2022, the work group considered the strength and quality of the evidence, patient preferences, and benefits versus harms on critical outcomes before making consensus recommendations.

Recommendations: The revised CPG includes 52 recommendations on evaluation, pharmacotherapy, invasive interventions, and nonpharmacologic interventions for selected primary and secondary headache disorders. In addition to triptans and aspirin-acetaminophen-caffeine, newer calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors (gepants) are options for treatment of acute migraine. Medications to prevent episodic migraine (EM) include angiotensin-receptor blockers, lisinopril, magnesium, topiramate, valproate, memantine, the newer CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and atogepant. AbobotulinumtoxinA can be used for prevention of chronic migraine but not EM. Gabapentin is not recommended for prevention of EM. Ibuprofen (400 mg) and acetaminophen (1000 mg) can be used for treatment of TTH, and amitriptyline for prevention of chronic TTH. Physical therapy or aerobic exercise can be used in management of TTH and migraines.

Background: High out-of-pocket costs in Medicare may leave many beneficiaries in financial precarity. Beneficiaries with modest incomes are often ineligible for Medicaid (which covers most out-of-pocket Medicare costs) and may have insufficient resources to pay an unexpected health care bill. This has prompted calls to improve financial protections, but the target population remains uncharacterized.

Objective: To identify beneficiaries who would face financial precarity if exposed to the Medicare Part A hospital deductible ($1600).

Design: Cross-sectional study of the 2018 wave of the Health and Retirement Study.

Setting: United States.

Participants: Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with incomes greater than 100% to 400% or less of the federal poverty level.

Measurements: Nationally representative estimates of financial precarity, defined as having insufficient funds to pay the deductible, examined across 4 scenarios that considered checking and savings account balances, total liquid assets (with a reserve for future living costs), and supplemental insurance.

Results: Among 4881 beneficiaries (population weighted n = 26 619 823), 45.0% had insufficient funds in checking and savings accounts to pay the Medicare hospital deductible. Financial precarity was more prevalent among Black and Hispanic versus White beneficiaries (73.5% and 76.2% vs. 36.2%), those with less versus more than high school education (70.0% vs. 37.1%), and those with 3 or more versus 2 or fewer chronic conditions (49.2% vs. 39.1%). In defining financial precarity to include beneficiaries with insufficient liquid assets to pay the deductible while maintaining a $5000 reserve for future living expenses, 50.7% were financially precarious. Building off this definition to assume supplemental insurance covered the deductible, 39.0% remained financially precarious.

Limitation: Cost-sharing exposure is limited to hospitalization.

Conclusion: Many Medicare beneficiaries with modest incomes are at risk for financial hardship from costs of a single hospital stay.

Primary funding source: National Institute on Aging.

Background: Cell-free DNA blood tests (cf-bDNA) and next-generation stool tests could change colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

Objective: To estimate the clinical and economic impacts of novel CRC screening tests.

Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using MOSAIC (Model of Screening and Surveillance for Colorectal Cancer).

Data sources: Published data.

Target population: Average-risk persons.

Time horizon: Ages 45 to 100 years.

Perspective: Health sector.

Intervention: Novel versus established CRC screening tests.

Outcome measures: Incidence and mortality of CRC, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs.

Results of base-case analysis: For colonoscopy every 10 years, annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and triennial next-generation multitarget stool DNA, FIT-RNA, cf-bDNA (Guardant Shield), or cf-bDNA (Freenome), the relative rates (RRs) and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) versus no screening for CRC incidence were 0.21 (0.19 to 0.22), 0.29 (0.27 to 0.31), 0.33 (0.32 to 0.36), 0.32 (0.30 to 0.34), 0.58 (0.55 to 0.61) and 0.58 (0.55 to 0.60), respectively; the RRs for CRC death were 0.19 (0.17 to 0.20), 0.25 (0.23 to 0.27), 0.28 (0.27 to 0.30), 0.28 (0.26 to 0.30), 0.44 (0.42 to 0.47), and 0.46 (0.44 to 0.49), respectively. The cf-bDNA test (Shield; list price $1495) cost $89 600 ($74 800 to $102 300) per QALY gained versus no screening; alternatives were less costly and more effective.

Results of sensitivity analysis: Incremental costs exceeded incremental benefits when novel test intervals were shortened to 2 or 1 years. The cf-bDNA test matched FIT's impact on CRC mortality at 1.35 (1.30 to 1.40)-fold FIT's uptake rate, assuming equal colonoscopy follow-up. If persons who accept colonoscopy or stool tests shifted to cf-bDNA, CRC deaths increased. This adverse effect was overcome if every 3 such substitutions were counterbalanced by cf-bDNA uptake by 2 or more persons refusing alternatives, assuming equal colonoscopy follow-up.

Limitation: Longitudinal test-specific participation patterns are unknown.

Conclusion: First-generation cf-bDNA tests may deliver net benefit or harm, depending on the balance between achieving screening in persons who decline alternatives versus substituting cf-bDNA for more effective alternatives.

Primary funding source: The Gorrindo Family Fund.

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of computer-aided detection (CADe) system-enhanced colonoscopy compared with conventional colonoscopy suggest increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) and decreased adenoma miss rate (AMR), but the effect on detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) is unclear.

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review to compare performance of CADe-enhanced and conventional colonoscopy.

Data sources: Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched through February 2024.

Study selection: Published RCTs comparing CADe-enhanced and conventional colonoscopy.

Data extraction: Average adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) and ACN per colonoscopy were primary outcomes. Adenoma detection rate, AMR, and ACN detection rate (ACN DR) were secondary outcomes. Balancing outcomes included withdrawal time and resection of nonneoplastic polyps (NNPs). Subgroup analyses were done by neural network architecture.

Data synthesis: Forty-four RCTs with 36 201 cases were included. Computer-aided detection-enhanced colonoscopies have higher average APC (12 090 of 12 279 [0.98] vs. 9690 of 12 292 [0.78], incidence rate difference [IRD] = 0.22 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.28]) and higher ADR (7098 of 16 253 [44.7%] vs. 5825 of 15 855 [36.7%], rate ratio [RR] = 1.21 [CI, 1.15 to 1.28]). Average ACN per colonoscopy was similar (1512 of 9296 [0.16] vs. 1392 of 9121 [0.15], IRD = 0.01 [CI, -0.01 to 0.02]), but ACN DR was higher with CADe system use (1260 of 9899 [12.7%] vs. 1119 of 9746 [11.5%], RR = 1.16 [CI, 1.02 to 1.32]). Using CADe systems resulted in resection of almost 2 extra NNPs per 10 colonoscopies and longer total withdrawal time (0.53 minutes [CI, 0.30 to 0.77]).

Limitation: Statistically significant heterogeneity in quality and sample size and inability to blind endoscopists to the intervention in included studies may affect the performance estimates.

Conclusion: Computer-aided detection-enhanced colonoscopies have increased APC and detection rate but no difference in ACN per colonoscopy and a small increase in ACN DR. There is minimal increase in procedure time and no difference in performance across neural network architectures.

Primary funding source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42023422835).

Background: Caregivers face challenges (including competing desires to prevent injury, respect autonomy, and avoid conflict) when addressing firearm access by community-dwelling persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD).

Objective: To test the effect of the online Safety in Dementia (SiD) decision aid on caregivers' decision making about firearm access for people with ADRD.

Design: Prospective 2-group randomized trial with longitudinal follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05173922).

Setting: United States.

Participants: English- or Spanish-speaking caregivers (aged ≥18 years) of community-dwelling adults with ADRD and firearm access.

Intervention: SiD versus a web-based information control.

Measurements: The primary outcome was preparation for decision making about firearm access. The secondary outcome at follow-up was self-reported action to reduce access.

Results: Among 500 participants enrolled between June 2022 and February 2024, the mean age was 47 years, 69% identified as female, half were the adult child or stepchild of the person with ADRD, and 99% chose study participation in English. Participant characteristics were similar by study group. For the primary outcome, SiD significantly increased preparation for decision making versus the control (69.8 vs. 64.8 out of 100; mean difference, 4.80 [95% CI, 0.53 to 9.07]; P = 0.024). There was no significant effect on actions to reduce firearm access at 2 weeks or 2 months.

Limitation: The results may not be generalizable to non-English-speaking populations.

Conclusion: The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. Use of such resources in clinical or community settings may support caregivers and people with ADRD in avoiding firearm injury or death.

Primary funding source: National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.