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).

/pdf/screening-for-osteoporosis-to-prevent-fractures-us-gz291gydly.pdf

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures – 2019 update: cosponsored by american association of clinical endocrinologists/american college of endocrinology, the obesity society, american society for metabolic & bariatric surgery, obesity medicine association, and american society of anesthesiologists*

Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutrition, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of patients undergoing bariatric procedures - 2019 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists.

Adult spinal deformity.

Objective The development of these updated clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) was commissioned by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), The Obesity Society (TOS), American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), Obesity Medicine Association (OMA), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Boards of Directors in adherence with the AACE 2017 protocol for standardized production of CPGs, algorithms, and checklists. Methods Each recommendation was evaluated and updated based on new evidence from 2013 to the present and subjective factors provided by experts. Results New or updated topics in this CPG include: contextualization in an adiposity-based chronic disease complications-centric model, nuance-based and algorithm/checklist-assisted clinical decision-making about procedure selection, novel bariatric procedures, enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery protocols, and logistical concerns (including cost factors) in the current health care arena. There are 85 numbered recommendations that have updated supporting evidence, of which 61 are revised and 12 are new. Noting that there can be multiple recommendation statements within a single numbered recommendation, there are 31 (13%) Grade A, 42 (17%) Grade B, 72 (29%) Grade C, and 101 (41%) Grade D recommendations. There are 858 citations, of which 81 (9.4%) are evidence level (EL) 1 (highest), 562 (65.5%) are EL 2, 72 (8.4%) are EL 3, and 143 (16.7%) are EL 4 (lowest). Conclusions Bariatric procedures remain a safe and effective intervention for higher-risk patients with obesity. Clinical decision-making should be evidence based within the context of a chronic disease. A team approach to perioperative care is mandatory, with special attention to nutritional and metabolic issues.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Perioperative Nutrition, Metabolic, and Nonsurgical Support of Patients Undergoing Bariatric Procedures – 2019 Update: Cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology, The Obesity Society, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Obesity Medicine Association, and American Society of Anesthesiologists

Importance Osteoporotic fractures cause significant morbidity and mortality. Objective To update the evidence on screening and treatment to prevent osteoporotic fractures for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries (November 1, 2009, through October 1, 2016) and surveillance of the literature (through March 23, 2018); bibliographies from articles. Study Selection Adults 40 years and older; screening cohorts without prevalent low-trauma fractures or treatment cohorts with increased fracture risk; studies assessing screening, bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments, pharmacologic treatment. Data Extraction and Synthesis Dual, independent review of titles/abstracts and full-text articles; study quality rating; random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Incident fractures and related morbidity and mortality, diagnostic and predictive accuracy, harms of screening or treatment. Results One hundred sixty-eight fair- or good-quality articles were included. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 12 483) comparing screening with no screening reported fewer hip fractures (2.6% vs 3.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]) but no other statistically significant benefits or harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests to identify osteoporosis varied (area under the curve [AUC], 0.32-0.89). The pooled accuracy of clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis ranged from AUC of 0.65 to 0.76 in women and from 0.76 to 0.80 in men; the accuracy for predicting fractures was similar. For women, bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and denosumab were associated with a lower risk of vertebral fractures (9 trials [n = 23 690]; relative risks [RRs] from 0.32-0.64). Bisphosphonates (8 RCTs [n = 16 438]; pooled RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.76-0.92]) and denosumab (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) were associated with a lower risk of nonvertebral fractures. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture (1 RCT [n = 7868]; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.37-0.97]), but bisphosphonates did not have a statistically significant association (3 RCTs [n = 8988]; pooled RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.44-1.11]). Evidence was limited for men: zoledronic acid reduced the risk of radiographic vertebral fractures (1 RCT [n = 1199]; RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.70]); no studies demonstrated reductions in clinical or hip fractures. Bisphosphonates were not consistently associated with reported harms other than deep vein thrombosis (raloxifene vs placebo; 3 RCTs [n = 5839]; RR, 2.14 [95% CI, 0.99-4.66]). Conclusions and Relevance In women, screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures may reduce hip fractures, and treatment reduced the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures; there was not consistent evidence of treatment harms. The accuracy of bone measurement tests or clinical risk assessments for identifying osteoporosis or predicting fractures varied from very poor to good.

/pdf/screening-to-prevent-osteoporotic-fractures-updated-evidence-1y4vibqsc7.pdf

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Purpose To evaluate the evidence on screening and treating children for speech and language delays or disorders for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources PubMed/MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo®, ClinicalTrials.gov, HSRProj, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of published literature (through July 2014). Study Selection Two investigators independently selected studies reporting on benefits and harms of screening; accuracy of screening tools compared with diagnostic evaluations; and benefits or harms of treatment of speech and language delays or disorders compared with placebo, watchful waiting, or wait-list interventions. To provide context for evaluating our Key Questions, we also included studies describing screening instruments and risk factors for speech and language delays or disorder. Data Extraction One reviewer extracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two independent reviewers assigned quality ratings using predefined criteria. Data Synthesis No included studies examined the effects of screening on speech and language or other functional outcomes. We included 23 studies evaluating the accuracy of speech and language screening in primary care settings to identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions. Among instruments in 13 studies in which parents rated their children’s skills, sensitivity ranged from 50 to 94 percent and specificity ranged from 45 to 96 percent. Of the three instruments widely used in the United States, the MacArthur Bates Communication Development Inventory (CDI) and the Language Development Survey (LDS) outperformed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) Communication Domain, especially in terms of their specificity, correctly identifying, on average, 82 percent (CDI) and 91 percent (LDS) compared with 58 percent (ASQ) of children without a language disorder. The ASQ and CDI have versions for infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children, with the CDI being more robust across age groups. The accuracy of professionally or paraprofessionally administered instruments was more variable across studies, and many did not perform as well as parent-rated instruments. Because few studies examined the same instrument in different populations or in different ages, it is unclear how professionally or paraprofessionally administered instruments for multiple ages fare more broadly or whether there is an optimal age for screening. We found no studies addressing adverse effects of screening, such as deleterious consequences of false conclusions from screening. We also found no studies concerning the role of enhanced surveillance by a primary care provider. We included 13 studies examining treatment for speech and language delays or disorders. Although the treatment approaches sometimes overlap, we organized our findings by outcome: language (including expressive and receptive language and more specific aspects of language, such as vocabulary, syntax/morphology, and narratives), speech sounds (including articulation, phonology, and speech intelligibility), and fluency (stuttering). Although results were mixed, the majority of studies found treatment to be effective. Characteristics of effective studies include higher intensity, treating children with more severe delays, and individualizing treatment to the child. We found little evidence concerning other functional outcomes or adverse effects of treatment. Risk factors that were generally associated with speech and language delays or disorders in multivariate analyses of cohort populations included being male, a family history of speech and language concerns, and lower levels of parental educational achievement. Limitations As in the earlier review, we did not find any well-conducted trials that could address our overarching question of whether screening leads to improved outcomes. Many screening studies do not include unselected samples from the population but rather participants with and without language delays. Intervention studies did not consistently control for additional community services that children may have been receiving and varied greatly in treatment approach and outcome measurement. Also, because young children with disabilities are entitled to treatment, it may not be possible for future studies in the United States to examine treatment versus no treatment. Conclusion Our review yields evidence that two parent-rated screening instruments, the CDI and LDS, can accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions and likely can be interpreted with little difficulty in the primary care setting. Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may be effective.

Screening for Speech and Language Delays and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years or Younger: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Purpose To review evidence about screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries from November 1, 2009, through October 1, 2016, and surveillance of the literature through March 23, 2018; bibliographies from retrieved articles. Study Selection Two investigators independently selected studies using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. We selected studies with a majority of adults age 40 years or older conducted in countries with a very high human development index. For screening studies, we required that studies include a majority of participants without prevalent low-trauma fractures. For treatment studies, we required that studies include a majority of participants with increased fracture risk. We selected studies of screening tests (fracture risk prediction instruments, bone measurement testing, or a combination of fracture risk prediction instruments and bone measurement testing) that were feasible for primary care settings and available in the United States. We selected studies of treatment approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for synthesis of benefits and harms. We excluded studies of poor quality and of fracture risk prediction instruments without external validation. Data Extraction One investigator extracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two reviewers independently rated quality for included studies using predefined criteria. Data Synthesis One fair-quality trial demonstrated reduction in hip fractures when comparing screening with no screening (2.6% v 3.5%, Hazard rate [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.89). The study reported no other statistically significant benefits (osteoporotic or clinical fractures, mortality) or harms (anxiety, quality of life). We included 168 articles of fair or good quality; 105 articles assessed screening accuracy and 65 articles assessed benefits and harms of treatment. Using centrally measured dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the reference standard for identifying osteoporosis, the pooled estimate of accuracy as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) for clinical risk assessment instruments for women ranges from 0.65 to 0.76 and for men from 0.76 to 0.80. AUCs for the accuracy of calcaneal quantitative ultrasound in identifying central DXA—measured osteoporosis for women is 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.82, 7 studies) and for men is 0.80 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.94, 3 studies). The AUCs of machine-based tests, including centrally measured DXA (areal bone mineral density and trabecular bone score) and calcaneal quantitative ultrasound, for predicting fractures ranged from 0.59 to 0.86 (21 studies). The AUCs for instruments predicting fractures, some of which incorporate machine-based tests, have similar accuracy (pooled AUC range for the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool: 0.62 to 0.79; 24 studies). Available but limited evidence in studies including participants with a wide spectrum of baseline bone mineral density from normal to osteoporosis suggests no benefit from repeating a bone measurement test between 4 and 8 years after the initial screen. Evidence from placebo-controlled trials demonstrates the following benefits. For women, the risk of vertebral fractures can be reduced by bisphosphonates, parathyroid hormone, raloxifene, and denosumab by 36 percent to 68 percent. Relative risks (RRs) range from 0.32 (parathyroid hormone or denosumab) to 0.64 (raloxifene). The risk of nonvertebral fractures can be reduced by 16 percent to 20 percent by bisphosphonates and denosumab (RR, 0.84 and 0.80, respectively). The risk of hip fractures can be reduced by 40 percent by denosumab (RR, 0.60). Evidence from bisphosphonates does not demonstrate benefit for hip fractures. Evidence is very limited for men. The risk of morphometric vertebral fractures can be reduced by 67 percent by zoledronic acid (RR, 0.33). No studies demonstrate reductions in risk of clinical vertebral fractures or hip fractures for men. Evidence on variations in effectiveness for subgroups is also limited; a single trial each for five drugs suggests no differences in effectiveness by age, baseline bone mineral density, prior fractures, or a combination of risk factors. Bisphosphonates are not consistently associated with discontinuations, serious adverse events, gastrointestinal events, or cardiovascular events. No included studies reported cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femur fracture, although evidence from excluded studies (including active comparisons, case series, and secondary prevention populations) suggests an increased but rare risk of these outcomes. Raloxifene increases the risk of deep vein thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0.3%, RR, 2.14; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.66; I2=0%, 3 studies, N=5,839) and hot flashes (11.2% vs. 7.6%, RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.66; I2=0%, 5 trials; N=6,249) when compared with placebo. Limitations The evidence is limited on the direct question of the benefits and harms of screening for elevated osteoporotic fracture risk. The indirect evidence pathway rests on studies evaluating (1) the accuracy of screening approaches in identifying osteoporosis and predicting fractures and (2) the benefits of treatment among those with osteoporosis or at high risk for fractures. Other limitations of the evidence base relate to underlying heterogeneity in baseline risk, prior fractures, prior treatment, and duration of followup. Conclusions Evidence from one trial of screening to prevent osteoporotic fractures suggests a reduction in hip fractures. The accuracy of clinical risk assessment tools for identifying osteoporosis or predicting fractures generally ranges from very poor (0.50) to good (0.90). Treatments reduce the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Studies do not consistently demonstrate an increased risk of harms for drugs, although studies of raloxifene suggest a trend toward higher risk of deep vein thrombosis. Rare harms, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw and atypical femur fractures were not reported in this body of evidence but they may occur. The evidence is limited for subpopulations characterized by age, sex, baseline bone mineral density, and baseline fracture risk.

Katie Cullen

Papers

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Screening for Speech and Language Delays and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years or Younger: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Screening to Prevent Osteoporotic Fractures: An Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Screening for Speech and Language Delays and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years or Younger