Rationale: Individuals acting as surrogate decision-makers for critically ill patients frequently struggle in this role and experience high levels of long-term psychological distress. Prior interventions that were designed solely to improve information sharing between clinicians and family members have been ineffective. Objectives: We sought to examine the impact of a multicomponent family support intervention on patient and family outcomes. Methods: We conducted a patient-level randomized clinical trial at six ICUs in a healthcare system in Pennsylvania. An external interventionist interacted daily with surrogate decision-makers for incapacitated, critically ill patients at high risk of death or severe long-term functional impairment to deliver four types of protocolized support during the ICU stay: emotional support; communication support; decisional support; and, if indicated, anticipatory grief support. The control condition involved usual care plus two brief education sessions about critical illness. Measurements and Main Results: Primary outcome was the surrogates' scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months (range = 0-42). A total of 444 surrogates of 291 patients were enrolled (233 surrogates in intervention and 211 in control). The Four Supports intervention was delivered with high fidelity (frequency of per protocol delivery of key intervention elements, 97.1%; quality rating of intervention delivery, 2.9 ± 0.2 on a scale ranging from 1 to 3, with higher scores indicating higher quality of intervention delivery). There was no intervention effect on the primary outcome, surrogates' Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total scores at 6-month follow-up (β = 0.06; 95% confidence interval, -0.07 to 0.19; P = 0.35), or the prespecified secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Among critically ill patients at high risk of death or functional impairment, a family support intervention delivered by an external interventionist did not reduce surrogates' long-term psychological symptom burden.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01982877).

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.

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.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death in the US. Known modifiable risk factors for CVD include smoking, overweight and obesity, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or hypertension, dyslipidemia, lack of physical activity, and unhealthy diet. Adults who adhere to national guidelines for a healthy diet and physical activity have lower cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those who do not. All persons, regardless of their CVD risk status, benefit from healthy eating behaviors and appropriate physical activity.To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity for CVD prevention in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.This recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older with known hypertension or elevated blood pressure, those with dyslipidemia, or those who have mixed or multiple risk factors such as metabolic syndrome or an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 7.5% or greater. Adults with other known modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as abnormal blood glucose levels, obesity, and smoking are not included in this recommendation.The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions have a moderate net benefit on CVD risk in adults at increased risk for CVD.The USPSTF recommends offering or referring adults with CVD risk factors to behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy diet and physical activity. (B recommendation).

ImportanceDementia (also known as major neurocognitive disorder) is defined by a significant decline in 1 or more cognitive domains that interferes with a person's independence in daily activities. Dementia affects an estimated 2.4 to 5.5 million individuals in the United States, and its prevalence increases with age.ObjectiveTo update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on screening for cognitive impairment, including mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia, in community-dwelling adults, including those 65 years or older residing in independent living facilities.PopulationThis recommendation applies to community-dwelling older adults 65 years or older, without recognized signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment.Evidence AssessmentThe USPSTF concludes that the evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for cognitive impairment cannot be determined.RecommendationThe USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for cognitive impairment in older adults. (I statement).

Objective: To test the efficacy of consultation designed to prevent anticoagulant-related bleeding.Design: Randomized, controlled trial.Setting: A large teaching hospital.Patients: A total of 101 patients at increased (> 15%) risk for major, in-hospital bleeding while starting long-term anticoagulant therapy who were identified using a validated prediction rule.Interventions: Fifty-five patients received usual care under the direction of the attending physician who had initiated anticoagulant therapy. Forty-six patients received guideline-based consultation in addition to usual care. Guideline-based consultation included individualized review of the risks and benefits of anticoagulant therapy and, on the basis of current practice guidelines, recommendations for daily management.Measurements: The main outcome was in-hospital bleeding, which was classified using a reliable, explicit index.Results: Major or minor bleeding occurred in 17 of 55 patients (31%) receiving usual care alone, compared with 6 of 46 patients (13%) receiving consultation in addition to usual care (P = 0.03). The protective efficacy of consultation was 58% (95% Cl, 3% to 82%). Consultation was associated with similar reductions in the frequencies of major bleeding (from 13% to 4%) and minor bleeding (from 18% to 9%). Consultative recommendations had an 84% compliance rate and directly affected anticoagulant management: In the consult group, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents were stopped in six patients (13%), and therapeutic ranges were achieved more often for activated partial thromboplastin times (52% compared with 45% in the usual care group, P = 0.08) and for prothrombin times (47% compared with 27% in the usual care group, P < 0.001). Nearly all housestaff and attending physicians (91%) for patients receiving consultation also reported that consultation improved housestaff learning. The consult group had a somewhat lower rate of thromboembolism in the 90 days after discharge (5% compared with 17%, P = 0.06). Death rates and mean lengths of stay were similar in the two groups.Conclusion: Guideline-based consultation was associated with reduction in the frequency of anticoagulant-related bleeding in patients at increased risk for major in-hospital bleeding.

Importance An estimated 1.1 million individuals in the United States are currently living with HIV, and more than 700 000 persons have died of AIDS since the first cases were reported in 1981. In 2017, there were 38 281 new diagnoses of HIV infection reported in the United States; 81% of these new diagnoses were among males and 19% were among females. Although treatable, HIV infection has no cure and has significant health consequences. Objective To issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV infection. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits of PrEP for the prevention of HIV infection with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy or combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine and whether the benefits vary by risk group, population subgroup, or regimen or dosing strategy; the diagnostic accuracy of risk assessment tools to identify persons at high risk of HIV acquisition; the rates of adherence to PrEP in primary care settings; the association between adherence and effectiveness of PrEP; and the harms of PrEP when used for HIV prevention. Findings The USPSTF found convincing evidence that PrEP is of substantial benefit in decreasing the risk of HIV infection in persons at high risk of HIV acquisition. The USPSTF also found convincing evidence that adherence to PrEP is highly associated with its efficacy in preventing the acquisition of HIV infection; thus, adherence to PrEP is central to realizing its benefit. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that PrEP is associated with small harms, including kidney and gastrointestinal adverse effects. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the magnitude of benefit of PrEP with oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate–based therapy to reduce the risk of acquisition of HIV infection in persons at high risk is substantial. Conclusions and Recommendation The USPSTF recommends offering PrEP with effective antiretroviral therapy to persons at high risk of HIV acquisition. (A recommendation)

IMPORTANCE An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is typically defined as aortic enlargement with a diameter of 3.0 cmor larger. The prevalence of AAA has declined over the past 2 decades among screened men 65 years or older in various European countries. The current prevalence of AAA in the United States is unclear because of the low uptake of screening. Most AAAs are asymptomatic until they rupture. Although the risk for rupture varies greatly by aneurysm size, the associated risk for death with rupture is as high as 81%. OBJECTIVE To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the effectiveness of 1-time and repeated screening for AAA, the associated harms of screening, and the benefits and harms of available treatments for small AAAs (3.0-5.4 cm in diameter) identified through screening. POPULATION This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. However, the randomized trial evidence focuses almost entirely on men aged 65 to 75 years. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Based on a review of the evidence, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked is of moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked is of small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the net benefit of screening for AAA in women aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history of AAA. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for AAA in women aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA outweigh the benefits. RECOMMENDATIONS The USPSTF recommends 1-time screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked rather than routinely screening all men in this group. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history of AAA. (I statement).

Importance Perinatal depression, which is the occurrence of a depressive disorder during pregnancy or following childbirth, affects as many as 1 in 7 women and is one of the most common complications of pregnancy and the postpartum period. It is well established that perinatal depression can result in adverse short- and long-term effects on both the woman and child. Objective To issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on interventions to prevent perinatal depression. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of preventive interventions for perinatal depression in pregnant or postpartum women or their children. The USPSTF reviewed contextual information on the accuracy of tools used to identify women at increased risk of perinatal depression and the most effective timing for preventive interventions. Interventions reviewed included counseling, health system interventions, physical activity, education, supportive interventions, and other behavioral interventions, such as infant sleep training and expressive writing. Pharmacological approaches included the use of nortriptyline, sertraline, and omega-3 fatty acids. Findings The USPSTF found convincing evidence that counseling interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal therapy, are effective in preventing perinatal depression. Women with a history of depression, current depressive symptoms, or certain socioeconomic risk factors (eg, low income or young or single parenthood) would benefit from counseling interventions and could be considered at increased risk. The USPSTF found adequate evidence to bound the potential harms of counseling interventions as no greater than small, based on the nature of the intervention and the low likelihood of serious harms. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence to assess the benefits and harms of other noncounseling interventions. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that providing or referring pregnant or postpartum women at increased risk to counseling interventions has a moderate net benefit in preventing perinatal depression. Conclusions and Recommendation The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide or refer pregnant and postpartum persons who are at increased risk of perinatal depression to counseling interventions. (B recommendation)

Importance Potentially harmful mutations of the breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk for breast, ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer. For women in the United States, breast cancer is the most common cancer after nonmelanoma skin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death. In the general population, BRCA1/2 mutations occur in an estimated 1 in 300 to 500 women and account for 5% to 10% of breast cancer cases and 15% of ovarian cancer cases. Objective To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer. Evidence Review The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations in asymptomatic women who have never been diagnosed with BRCA-related cancer, as well as those with a previous diagnosis of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer who have completed treatment and are considered cancer free. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed interventions to reduce the risk for breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer in women with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations, including intensive cancer screening, medications, and risk-reducing surgery. Findings For women whose family or personal history is associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are moderate. For women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with an increased risk for harmful mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, there is adequate evidence that the benefits of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to none. Regardless of family or personal history, the USPSTF found adequate evidence that the overall harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, genetic testing, and interventions are small to moderate. Conclusions and Recommendation The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations. (D recommendation).

BACKGROUND: End-of-life spending and healthcare utilization among older adults with COPD have not been previously described. METHODS: We examined data on Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who died during the period of 2013-2014. End-of-life measures were retrospectively reviewed for 2 years prior to death. Hospital referral regions (HRRs) were categorized into quintiles of age-sex-race-adjusted overall spending during the last 2 years of life. Geographic quintile variation in spending and healthcare utilization was examined across the continuum. RESULTS: We investigated data on 146,240 decedents with COPD from 306 HRRs. Age-sex-race-adjusted overall spending per decedent during the last 2 years of life varied significantly nationwide ($61,271 +/- $11,639 per decedent; range: $48,288 +/-$3,665 to $79,453 +/-$9,242). Inpatient care accounted for 40.2% of spending ($24,626 +/-$6,192 per decedent). Overall, 82%+/- 4% of decedents were admitted to the hospital for 13.7 +/- 3.1 days, and 55%+/- 11% were admitted to an intensive care unit for 5.4 +/- 2.5 days. Compared with HRRs in the lowest spending quintile, HRRs in the highest spending quintile had a 1.5-fold longer hospital length of stay. Skilled nursing facilities accounted for 11.6% of spending ($7101 +/-$2403 per decedent), and these facilities were utilized by 38%+/- 7% of decedents for 18.7 +/- 4.9 days. Hospice accounted for 10.3% of spending ($6,307 +/-$2,201 per decedent) and was utilized by 47%+/- 9% of decedents for 39.7 +/- 14.8 days. Significant geographic variation in hospice utilization existed nationwide. CONCLUSIONS: End-of-life spending and healthcare utilization among older adults with COPD varied substantially nationwide. Decedents with COPD frequently utilized acute care near the end of life. Hospice utilization was higher than expected, with significant geographic disparities. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Importance:Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races.Objective:To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer.Evidence Review:The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.Findings:The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer.Conclusions and Recommendation:The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

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).

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Internal Medicine HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Internal Medicine journal

Importance An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is typically defined as aortic enlargement with a diameter of 3.0 cm or larger. The prevalence of AAA has declined over the past 2 decades among screened men 65 years or older in various European countries. The current prevalence of AAA in the United States is unclear because of the low uptake of screening. Most AAAs are asymptomatic until they rupture. Although the risk for rupture varies greatly by aneurysm size, the associated risk for death with rupture is as high as 81%. Objective To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the effectiveness of 1-time and repeated screening for AAA, the associated harms of screening, and the benefits and harms of available treatments for small AAAs (3.0-5.4 cm in diameter) identified through screening. Population This recommendation applies to asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. However, the randomized trial evidence focuses almost entirely on men aged 65 to 75 years. Evidence Assessment Based on a review of the evidence, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked is of moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked is of small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the net benefit of screening for AAA in women aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history of AAA. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for AAA in women aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA outweigh the benefits. Recommendations The USPSTF recommends 1-time screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for AAA with ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have never smoked rather than routinely screening all men in this group. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. (D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AAA with ultrasonography in women aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked or have a family history of AAA. (I statement)

In the United States, the rate of gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum was an estimated 0.4 cases per 100 000 live births per year from 2013 to 2017. Gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum can cause corneal scarring, ocular perforation, and blindness as early as 24 hours after birth. In the absence of ocular prophylaxis, transmission rates of gonococcal infection from mother to newborn are 30% to 50%.To reaffirm the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2011 recommendation on ocular prophylaxis for gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum.The USPSTF commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update to identify new and substantial evidence sufficient enough to change its prior recommendation.Using a reaffirmation process, the USPSTF found no new data that would change its previous conclusion that topical ocular prophylaxis is effective in preventing gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum and related ocular conditions. The USPSTF found no new data that would change its previous conclusion that there is convincing evidence that topical ocular prophylaxis of all newborns is not associated with serious harms. Therefore, the USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that there is convincing evidence that topical ocular prophylaxis for all newborns provides substantial benefit.The USPSTF recommends prophylactic ocular topical medication for all newborns to prevent gonococcal ophthalmia neonatorum. (A recommendation).