IMPORTANCE: The number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to ...2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015. OBJECTIVE: To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 recommendation on screening for cervical cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for cervical cancer, with a focus on clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone or hrHPV and cytology together (cotesting) compared with cervical cytology alone. The USPSTF also commissioned a decision analysis model to evaluate the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, the effectiveness of different screening strategies, and related benefits and harms of different screening strategies. FINDINGS: Screening with cervical cytology alone, primary hrHPV testing alone, or cotesting can detect high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Screening women aged 21 to 65 years substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The harms of screening for cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 65 years are moderate. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years substantially outweigh the harms. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with both tests (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years outweigh the harms. Screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer provides no benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate to high certainty that screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer, screening women younger than 21 years, and screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer does not result in a positive net benefit. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer. (D recommendation)
Whether functional status before dialysis therapy is maintained after its initiation in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease is unclear. This study assessed functional status in all nursing ...home residents in the United States who began to undergo dialysis between June 1998 and October 2000. The initiation of dialysis in such residents was associated with a substantial and sustained decline in functional status.
The initiation of dialysis in nursing home residents was associated with a substantial and sustained decline in functional status.
In the United States, increasing numbers of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are starting dialysis.
1
In 1999, nursing home residents accounted for 4% of all new patients with ESRD and 11% of new patients with ESRD who were older than 70 years of age.
2
The benefits of dialysis in such patients are uncertain. Mortality in the first year after the initiation of dialysis exceeds 35% among patients older than 70 years of age and exceeds 50% among patients older than 80 years of age.
2
Moreover, the extent to which dialysis extends life and its effect on the quality . . .
Polypharmacy and Prescribing Quality in Older People Steinman, Michael A.; Seth Landefeld, C.; Rosenthal, Gary E. ...
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS),
October 2006, Letnik:
54, Številka:
10
Journal Article
Recenzirano
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between inappropriate prescribing, medication underuse, and the total number of medications used by patients.
DESIGN: Cross‐sectional study.
SETTING: Veterans ...Affairs Medical Center.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety‐six outpatients aged 65 and older who were taking five or more medications.
MEASUREMENTS: Inappropriate prescribing was assessed using a combination of the Beers drugs‐to‐avoid criteria (2003 update) and subscales of the Medication Appropriateness Index that assess whether a drug is ineffective, not indicated, or unnecessary duplication of therapy. Underuse was assessed using the Assessment of Underutilization of Medications instrument. All vitamins and minerals, topical and herbal medications, and medications taken as needed were excluded from the analyses.
RESULTS: Mean age was 74.6, and patients used a mean±standard deviation of 8.1±2.5 medications (range 5–17). Use of one or more inappropriate medications was documented in 128 patients (65%), including 73 (37%) taking a medication in violation of the Beers drugs‐to‐avoid criteria and 112 (57%) taking a medication that was ineffective, not indicated, or duplicative. Medication underuse was observed in 125 patients (64%). Together, inappropriate use and underuse were simultaneously present in 82 patients (42%), whereas 25 (13%) had neither inappropriate use nor underuse. When assessed by the total number of medications taken, the frequency of inappropriate medication use rose sharply from a mean of 0.4 inappropriate medications in patients taking five to six drugs, to 1.1 inappropriate medications in patients taking seven to nine drugs, to 1.9 inappropriate medications in patients taking 10 or more drugs (P<.001). In contrast, the frequency of underuse averaged 1.0 underused medications per patient and did not vary with the total number of medications taken (P=.26). Overall, patients using fewer than eight medications were more likely to be missing a potentially beneficial drug than to be taking a medication considered inappropriate.
CONCLUSION: Inappropriate medication use and underuse were common in older people taking five or more medications, with both simultaneously present in more than 40% of patients. Inappropriate medication use is most frequent in patients taking many medications, but underuse is also common and merits attention regardless of the total number of medications taken.
IMPORTANCE: By 2020, approximately 12.3 million individuals in the United States older than 50 years are expected to have osteoporosis. Osteoporotic fractures, particularly hip fractures, are ...associated with limitations in ambulation, chronic pain and disability, loss of independence, and decreased quality of life, and 21% to 30% of patients who experience a hip fracture die within 1 year. The prevalence of primary osteoporosis (ie, osteoporosis without underlying disease) increases with age and differs by race/ethnicity. With the aging of the US population, the potential preventable burden is likely to increase in future years. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2011 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for osteoporosis. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for and treatment of osteoporotic fractures in men and women, as well as risk assessment tools, screening intervals, and efficacy of screening and treatment in subgroups. The screening population was postmenopausal women and older men with no known previous osteoporotic fractures and no known comorbid conditions or medication use associated with secondary osteoporosis. FINDINGS: The USPSTF found convincing evidence that bone measurement tests are accurate for detecting osteoporosis and predicting osteoporotic fractures in women and men. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that clinical risk assessment tools are moderately accurate in identifying risk of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that drug therapies reduce subsequent fracture rates in postmenopausal women. The USPSTF found that the evidence is inadequate to assess the effectiveness of drug therapies in reducing subsequent fracture rates in men without previous fractures. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing to prevent osteoporotic fractures in women 65 years and older. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing to prevent osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years at increased risk of osteoporosis, as determined by a formal clinical risk assessment tool. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent osteoporotic fractures in men. (I statement)
IMPORTANCE: Basal and squamous cell carcinoma are the most common types of cancer in the United States and represent the vast majority of all cases of skin cancer; however, they rarely result in ...death or substantial morbidity, whereas melanoma skin cancer has notably higher mortality rates. In 2016, an estimated 76 400 US men and women will develop melanoma and 10 100 will die from the disease. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for skin cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for skin cancer with a clinical visual skin examination in reducing skin cancer morbidity and mortality and death from any cause; its potential harms, including any harms resulting from associated diagnostic follow-up; its test characteristics when performed by a primary care clinician vs a dermatologist; and whether its use leads to earlier detection of skin cancer compared with usual care. FINDINGS: Evidence to assess the net benefit of screening for skin cancer with a clinical visual skin examination is limited. Direct evidence on the effectiveness of screening in reducing melanoma morbidity and mortality is limited to a single fair-quality ecologic study with important methodological limitations. Information on harms is similarly sparse. The potential for harm clearly exists, including a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, possibly resulting in cosmetic or, more rarely, functional adverse effects, and the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in adults (I statement).
IMPORTANCE: Atrial fibrillation is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), and its prevalence increases with age, affecting about 3% of men and 2% of women aged 65 to 69 ...years and about 10% of adults 85 years and older. Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke, increasing risk of stroke by as much as 5-fold. Approximately 20% of patients who have a stroke associated with atrial fibrillation are first diagnosed with atrial fibrillation at the time of stroke or shortly thereafter. OBJECTIVE: To issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for atrial fibrillation with electrocardiography (ECG). EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for atrial fibrillation with ECG in adults 65 years and older, the effectiveness of screening with ECG for detecting previously undiagnosed atrial fibrillation compared with usual care, and the benefits and harms of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy for the treatment of screen-detected atrial fibrillation in older adults. FINDINGS: Most older adults with previously undiagnosed atrial fibrillation have a stroke risk above the threshold for anticoagulant therapy and would be eligible for treatment. Anticoagulant therapy is effective for stroke prevention in symptomatic persons with atrial fibrillation and high stroke risk. However, the USPSTF found inadequate evidence to determine whether screening with ECG and subsequent treatment in asymptomatic adults is more effective than usual care. At the same time, the harms of diagnostic follow-up and treatment prompted by abnormal ECG results are well established and include misdiagnosis and invasive testing. Given these uncertainties, it is not possible to determine the net benefit of screening with ECG. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for atrial fibrillation with ECG. (I statement)
IMPORTANCE: With approximately 14 000 deaths per year, ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death among US women and the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer. More than ...95% of ovarian cancer deaths occur among women 45 years and older. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for ovarian cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women not known to be at high risk for ovarian cancer (ie, high risk includes women with certain hereditary cancer syndromes that increase their risk for ovarian cancer). Outcomes of interest included ovarian cancer mortality, quality of life, false-positive rate, surgery and surgical complication rates, and psychological effects of screening. FINDINGS: The USPSTF found adequate evidence that screening for ovarian cancer does not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the harms from screening for ovarian cancer are at least moderate and may be substantial in some cases, and include unnecessary surgery for women who do not have cancer. Given the lack of mortality benefit of screening, and the moderate to substantial harms that could result from false-positive screening test results and subsequent surgery, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for ovarian cancer outweigh the benefit, and the net balance of the benefit and harms of screening is negative. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends against screening for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women who are not known to have a high-risk hereditary cancer syndrome.
IMPORTANCE: Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons ...died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment. OBJECTIVE: To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models. POPULATION: This recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.
The article discusses the findings of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of a consumer-targeted, pharmacist-led educational intervention on discontinuation of inappropriate mediation among ...community-dwelling older adults, which revealed that among older adults in Quebec, Canada, a pharmacist-led educational intervention resulted in greater discontinuation of prescriptions for inappropriate medication after 6 months. The importance and need to help overcome inertial to improve medication use is highlighted.
OBJECTIVES: To compare functional outcomes in the year after discharge for older adults discharged from the hospital after an acute medical illness with a new or additional disability in their basic ...self‐care activities of daily living (ADL) (compared with preadmission baseline 2 weeks before admission) with those of older adults discharged with baseline ADL function and identify predictors of failure to recover to baseline function 1 year after discharge.
DESIGN: Observational.
SETTING: Tertiary care hospital, community teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Older (aged ≥70) patients nonelectively admitted to general medical services (1993–1998).
MEASUREMENTS: Number of ADL disabilities at preadmission baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after discharge. Outcomes were death, sustained decline in ADL function, and recovery to baseline ADL function at each time point.
RESULTS: By 12 months after discharge, of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, 41.3% died, 28.6% were alive but had not recovered to baseline function, and 30.1% were at baseline function. Of those discharged at baseline function, 17.8% died, 15.2% were alive but with worse than baseline function, and 67% were at their baseline function (P<.001). Of those discharged with new or additional ADL disability, the presence or absence of recovery by 1 month was associated with long‐term outcomes. Age, cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, low albumin, and greater number of dependencies in instrumental ADLs independently predicted failure to recover.
CONCLUSION: For older adults discharged with new or additional disability in ADL after hospitalization for medical illness, prognosis for functional recovery is poor. Rehabilitation interventions of longer duration and timing than current reimbursement allows, caregiver support, and palliative care should be evaluated.
PDF
