Screening for asymptomatic peripheral artery disease (aPAD) with the ankle-brachial index (ABI) test is hypothesized to reduce disease progression and cardiovascular (CV) events by identifying individuals who may benefit from early initiation of medical therapy. Using a Markov model, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of initiating medical therapy (e.g. statin and ACE-inhibitor) after a positive ankle-brachial index (ABI) screen in 65-year-old patients. We modeled progression to symptomatic PAD (sPAD) and CV events with and without ABI screening, evaluating differences in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost of the ABI test, physician visit, new medication, CV events, and interventions for sPAD were incorporated in the model. We performed sensitivity analysis on model variables with uncertainty. Our model found an incremental cost of US $338 and an incremental QALY of 0.00380 with one-time ABI screening, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $88,758/QALY over a 35-year period. The variables with the largest effects in the ICER were aPAD disease prevalence, cost of monthly medication after a positive screen and 2-year medication adherence rates. Screening high-risk populations, such as tobacco users, where the prevalence of PAD may be 2.5 times higher, decreases the ICER to $24,092/QALY. Our analysis indicates the cost effectiveness of one-time screening for aPAD depends on prevalence, medication costs, and adherence to therapies for CV disease risk reduction. Screening in higher-risk populations under favorable assumptions about medication adherence results in the most favorable cost effectiveness, but limitations in the primary data preclude definitive assessment of cost effectiveness.

The CDC recommends routine voluntary HIV testing of all patients 13-64 years of age. Despite this recommendation, HIV testing rates are low even among those at identifiable risk, and many patients do not return to receive their results. To examine the costs and benefits of strategies to improve HIV testing and receipt of results. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model. Acceptance of testing, return rates, and related costs were derived from a randomized trial of 251 patients; long-term costs and health outcomes were derived from the literature. Primary-care patients with unknown HIV status. Comparison of three intervention models for HIV counseling and testing: Model A = traditional HIV counseling and testing; Model B = nurse-initiated routine screening with traditional HIV testing and counseling; Model C = nurse-initiated routine screening with rapid HIV testing and streamlined counseling. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness. Without consideration of the benefit from reduced HIV transmission, Model A resulted in per-patient lifetime discounted costs of $48,650 and benefits of 16.271 QALYs. Model B increased lifetime costs by $53 and benefits by 0.0013 QALYs (corresponding to 0.48 quality-adjusted life days). Model C cost $66 more than Model A with an increase of 0.0018 QALYs (0.66 quality-adjusted life days) and an incremental cost-effectiveness of $36,390/QALY. When we included the benefit from reduced HIV transmission, Model C cost $10,660/QALY relative to Model A. The cost-effectiveness of Model C was robust in sensitivity analyses. In a primary-care population, nurse-initiated routine screening with rapid HIV testing and streamlined counseling increased rates of testing and receipt of test results and was cost-effective compared with traditional HIV testing strategies.

Background

The choice of antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is complicated: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are novel alternatives to clopidogrel, patients with some genotypes may not respond to clopidogrel, and low-cost generic formulations of clopidogrel are available.

Objective

To determine the most cost-effective strategy for dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.

Design

Decision-analytic model.

Data sources

Published literature, Medicare claims, and life tables.

Target population

Patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.

Time horizon

Lifetime.

Perspective

Societal.

Intervention

Five strategies were examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19 with carriers of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and noncarriers receiving clopidogrel.

Outcome measures

Direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years(QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results of base-case analysis

The clopidogrel strategy produced$179 301 in costs and 9.428 QALYs. Genotyping with prasugrel was superior to prasugrel alone, with an ICER of $35 800 per QALY relative to clopidogrel. Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasugrel ($30 200 per QALY relative to clopidogrel). Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy($52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor).

Results of sensitivity analysis

Stronger associations between genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 per QALY). Genotyping with prasugrel was the preferred therapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor.

Limitation

No randomized trials have directly compared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor.

Conclusion

Genotype-guided personalization may improve the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may bean economically reasonable alternative in some settings.

Importance

Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the United States. Although invasive melanoma accounts for only 2% of all skin cancer cases, it is responsible for 80% of skin cancer deaths. Basal and squamous cell carcinoma, the 2 predominant types of nonmelanoma skin cancer, represent the vast majority of skin cancer cases.

Objective

To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on behavioral counseling for the primary prevention of skin cancer and the 2009 recommendation on screening for skin cancer with skin self-examination.

Evidence review

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on whether counseling patients about sun protection reduces intermediate outcomes (eg, sunburn or precursor skin lesions) or skin cancer; the link between counseling and behavior change, the link between behavior change and skin cancer incidence, and the harms of counseling or changes in sun protection behavior; and the link between counseling patients to perform skin self-examination and skin cancer outcomes, as well as the harms of skin self-examination.

Findings

The USPSTF determined that behavioral counseling interventions are of moderate benefit in increasing sun protection behaviors in children, adolescents, and young adults with fair skin types. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that behavioral counseling interventions result in a small increase in sun protection behaviors in adults older than 24 years with fair skin types. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence on the benefits and harms of counseling adults about skin self-examination to prevent skin cancer.

Conclusions and recommendation

The USPSTF recommends counseling young adults, adolescents, children, and parents of young children about minimizing exposure to UV radiation for persons aged 6 months to 24 years with fair skin types to reduce their risk of skin cancer. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer counseling to adults older than 24 years with fair skin types about minimizing their exposure to UV radiation to reduce risk of skin cancer. Existing evidence indicates that the net benefit of counseling all adults older than 24 years is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the presence of risk factors for skin cancer. (C recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of counseling adults about skin self-examination to prevent skin cancer. (I statement).

Importance

Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that performs an important role in calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism and also affects many other cellular regulatory functions outside the skeletal system. Vitamin D requirements may vary by individual; thus, no one serum vitamin D level cutpoint defines deficiency, and no consensus exists regarding the precise serum levels of vitamin D that represent optimal health or sufficiency.

Objective

To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for vitamin D deficiency, including the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment.

Population

Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended.

Evidence assessment

The USPSTF concludes that the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.

Recommendation

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).

Importance

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.

Objective

To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.

Population

Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).

Evidence assessment

The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.

Recommendation

The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

Importance

Pancreatic cancer is an uncommon cancer with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100 000 person-years. However, the death rate is 11.0 deaths per 100 000 person-years because the prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor. Although its incidence is low, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Because of the increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, along with improvements in early detection and treatment of other types of cancer, it is estimated that pancreatic cancer may soon become the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States.

Objective

To update the 2004 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for pancreatic cancer.

Evidence review

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer.

Findings

The USPSTF found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves disease-specific morbidity or mortality, or all-cause mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate. The USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms.

Conclusions and recommendation

The USPSTF recommends against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).

Importance

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a manifestation of atherosclerosis in the lower limbs. It can impair walking and, in severe cases, can lead to tissue loss, infection, and amputation. In addition to morbidity directly caused by PAD, patients with PAD are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, because atherosclerosis is a systemic disease that also causes coronary and cerebrovascular events.

Objective

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for PAD and CVD risk with the ankle-brachial index (ABI).

Evidence review

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on whether screening for PAD with the ABI in generally asymptomatic adults reduces morbidity or mortality from PAD or CVD. The current review expanded on the previous review to include individuals with diabetes and interventions that include supervised exercise and physical therapy intended to improve outcomes in the lower limbs.

Findings

The USPSTF found few data on the accuracy of the ABI for identifying asymptomatic persons who can benefit from treatment of PAD or CVD. There are few studies addressing the benefits of treating screen-detected patients with PAD; 2 good-quality studies showed no benefit of using the ABI to manage daily aspirin therapy in unselected populations, and 2 studies showed no benefit from exercise therapy. No studies addressed the harms of screening, although the potential exists for overdiagnosis, labeling, and opportunity costs. Studies that addressed the harms of treatment showed nonsignificant results. Therefore, the USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient and that the balance of benefits and harms of screening for PAD with the ABI in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.

Conclusions and recommendation

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for PAD and CVD risk with the ABI in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).