risk factors

Background: The misuse of legal and illegal substances has led to an increase in substance use disorder (SUD) in the United States. Although primary prevention strategies have been successfully used to target chronic physical diseases, these strategies have been less effective with SUD, given misconceptions of SUD, shortages in behavioral health professionals, and the population-based focus on specific substances. A developmental approach to the identification and primary prevention of SUD that does not fully rely upon behavioral health workers is needed. The purpose of this paper was to examine age related risk factors for developing SUD and present a novel individualized approach to SUD prevention.

Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify risk factors for SUD among children, young adults, adults, and older adults. We searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed between the years 1989-2019, and extracted data, analyzing similarities and differences in risk factors across life stages. Broader categories emerged that were used to group the risk factors.

Results: More than 370 articles were found. Across all age groups, risk factors included adverse childhood experiences, trauma, chronic health diseases, environmental factors, family history, social determinants, and grief and loss. Despite the similarities, the contextual factors and life challenges associated with these risks varied according to the various life stages. We proposed an approach to primary prevention of SUD based on risk factors for developing the disease according to different age groups. This approach emphasizes screening, education, and empowerment (SEE), wherein individuals are screened for risk factors according to their age group, and screening results are used to customize interventions in the form of education and empowerment. Given that trained persons, including non-healthcare providers, close to the at-risk individual could conduct the screening and then educate and mentor the individual according to the risk level, the number of people who develop SUD could decrease.

Conclusions: The risk factors for developing SUD vary across the various life stages, which suggests that individualized approaches that do not overtax behavioral healthcare workers are needed. Using SEE may foster early identification and individualized prevention of SUD.

• In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%), guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended to reduce sudden cardiac death and all-cause mortality; GDMT includes β-blockers; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (class I, level A recommendation).

• In patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less due to ischemic heart disease at least 40 days after myocardial infarction, at least 90 days after revascularization, and with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure despite GDMT, an ICD is recommended if expected survival is greater than 1 year (class I, level A recommendation).

• In patients with LVEF of 30% or less due to ischemic heart disease at least 40 days after myocardial infarction, at least 90 days after revascularization, and with NYHA class I heart failure symptoms despite GDMT, an ICD is recommended if expected survival is greater than 1 year (class I, level A recommendation).

• In patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, NYHA class II to III symptoms, and LVEF of 35% or less despite GDMT, an ICD is recommended if expected survival is greater than 1 year (class I, level A recommendation).

We aimed to evaluate the association between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) in patients with diabetes. Pubmed, EMBASE, BIOSIS, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge, last updated in July 2018, were searched. We assessed eligible studies for the association between vitamin D deficiency and DFU in diabetic patients. The mean difference (MD) or the odds ratio (OR) was calculated for continuous or dichotomous data respectively. Data were analyzed by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0 software. Seven studies that involved 1115 patients were included in this study. There were significantly reduced vitamin D levels in DFU (MD −13.47 nmol/L, 95%CI −16.84 to −10.10; P  =  0.34, I2 = 12%). Severe vitamin D deficiency was significantly associated with an increased risk of DFU (OR 3.22, 95%CI 2.42−4.28; P  = 0.64, I2 = 0%). This is the first meta-analysis demonstrating the association between serum vitamin D levels and DFU. Severe vitamin D deficiency is significantly associated with an increased risk of DFU.

Objective: We conducted a systematic evidence review to support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating their recommendation on screening for pancreatic cancer. Our review addresses the following Key Questions (KQs):
1. Does screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma improve cancer morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality; and 1a) Does screening effectiveness vary by clinically relevant subpopulations (e.g., by age group, family history of pancreatic cancer, personal history of new-onset diabetes, or other risk factors)?
2. What is the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic adenocarcinoma?
3. What are the harms of screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma?
4. Does treatment of screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma improve cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, or quality of life?
5. What are the harms of treatment of screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma?
Data Sources: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and PubMed, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We searched for articles published from 2002 to October 3, 2017, and updated our search on April 27, 2018. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), for relevant ongoing studies.
Study Selection: We reviewed 19,596 abstracts and 824 articles against specified inclusion criteria. Eligible studies included those written in English and conducted in adults age 18 years or older with or without risk factors for pancreatic cancer. For key questions on screening, we included imaging-based screening protocols. For key questions on treatment, we included studies of adults with screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Data Analysis: We conducted dual, independent critical appraisal of all provisionally included studies and abstracted study details and results from fair- and good-quality studies. Because of the limited number of studies and the population heterogeneity, we provided a narrative synthesis of results and used summary tables to allow for comparisons across studies. After confirming that the yield of different imaging modalities was similar across studies, we calculated a pooled diagnostic yield across studies and produced forest plots to illustrate the range of effects seen across studies. For harms of screening (KQ3) and harms of treatment (KQ5), we stratified results by procedural and psychosocial harms.
Results: We included 13 unique prospective cohort screening studies (24 articles) reporting results for 1,317 people. Studies were conducted in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, and all screening populations except one small comparison group were exclusively in persons at elevated familial or genetic risk for pancreatic cancer. No studies reported on the effect of screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma on cancer morbidity, mortality, or all-cause mortality (KQ1); and no studies reported on the effectiveness of treatment for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (KQ4).

Thirteen fair quality studies reported on the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (KQ2). Across these studies, 18 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were detected.. Twelve of 18 cases (66.7%) were detected at stage I or II or classified as “resectable.” Pooled yield for all screening tests to detect pancreatic adenocarcinoma on initial screening in high-risk populations was 7.8 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 3.6 to 14.7); and for total yield including both initial and repeat screening, it was 15.6 per 1000 (95% CI, 9.3 to 24.5).

Harms of screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Procedural harms of screening were evaluated in eight screening studies (n=675); psychological harms were assessed in two studies (n=277). Details on the assessment of harms were variably reported. In two studies (n=277) in which 150 individuals received ERCP as a diagnostic followup test, 15 people (10%) reported acute pancreatitis, nine of which required hospitalization. No evidence of increased worry, distress, depression, or anxiety after screening was reported, compared to before screening.

Harms of treatment of screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma
Of the 57 people who underwent surgery across all studies, six studies (n=32 people receiving surgery) assessed harms of treatment of screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (KQ5), with 7 harms detected in two studies. Methods of assessing harms were variably reported. Harms included one person experiencing stricture to the hepaticojejunal anastomosis at 11 months after surgery, one with unspecified post-operative complications, 2 with post-operative fistula and 3 cases of diabetes. In the two studies that systematically assessed harms in all surgical patients (n=12 people receiving surgery), no harms were reported.

Limitations: No randomized trials of screening were identified. The body of evidence includes observational screening studies with limited sample sizes and focused on populations with known familial risk, many with a substantial proportion of people with known genetic mutations. No studies included a clinical followup or unscreened comparison group, limiting assessment of diagnostic accuracy. Of those studies that reported harms of screening or treatment, limitations included inadequate description of the methods of assessing harms, including whether all participants were systematically assessed.

Conclusions: Imaging-based screening in groups at high familial risk can detect pancreatic adenocarcinoma with limited evidence of minimal harms. However, the clinical impact of screening is not well documented. There is insufficient evidence to assess benefits or harms of surgical intervention for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.