Faculty Bibliography

Roughly half of the adults in the United States are diagnosed with hypertension (HTN). Unfortunately, less than one-third have their condition under control. Clinicians generally have positive regard for the use of HTN guidelines to achieve HTN treatment goals; however, actual uptake remains low. Factors underpinning clinician variation in practice are poorly understood. To understand the relationship between clinicians' personal motivation to complete goals and their uptake of the Joint National Commission's HTN guidelines. The authors used Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT, ie, prevention and promotion focus), an empirically supported motivational theory, as a guiding framework to examine the relationship. The authors hypothesized that clinicians with high prevention focus would report following guidelines more often and have shorter follow-up visit intervals for patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. Clinicians (n  = 27) caring for adult patients diagnosed with HTN (n = 8605) in Federally Qualified Health Centers (n = 8). Clinicians' prevention and promotion focus scores and the number of days between visits for their patients with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) (≥ 140 mm Hg). Consistent with RFT, 60% of prevention focused clinicians reported they always followed the monthly visit guideline for the patients with uncontrolled blood pressure, compared with 38% of promotion focused clinicians (p = .254). The unadjusted probability of returning for a follow-up visit within 30 days was greater among patients whose clinician was higher in prevention focus (p = .009), but there was no evidence at the 0.05 significance level in our adjusted model. These findings provide some limited evidence that RFT is a useful framework to understand clinician adherence to HTN treatment guidelines.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:An estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5% meet criteria for prediabetes. The prevalences of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older adults. Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause of death in the US in 2017. Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes. Population/UNASSIGNED:Nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have overweight or obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥25 and ≥30, respectively) and no symptoms of diabetes. Evidence Assessment/UNASSIGNED:The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation/UNASSIGNED:The USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions. (B recommendation).

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:Gestational diabetes is diabetes that develops during pregnancy. Prevalence of gestational diabetes in the US has been estimated at 5.8% to 9.2%, based on traditional diagnostic criteria, although it may be higher if more inclusive criteria are used. Pregnant persons with gestational diabetes are at increased risk for maternal and fetal complications, including preeclampsia, fetal macrosomia (which can cause shoulder dystocia and birth injury), and neonatal hypoglycemia. Gestational diabetes has also been associated with an increased risk of several long-term health outcomes in pregnant persons and intermediate outcomes in their offspring. Objective:The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the accuracy, benefits, and harms of screening for gestational diabetes and the benefits and harms of treatment for the pregnant person and infant. Population:Pregnant persons who have not been previously diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Evidence Assessment:The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit to screening for gestational diabetes at 24 weeks of gestation or after to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on screening for gestational diabetes before 24 weeks of gestation is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined. Recommendation:The USPSTF recommends screening for gestational diabetes in asymptomatic pregnant persons at 24 weeks of gestation or after. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for gestational diabetes in asymptomatic pregnant persons before 24 weeks of gestation. (I statement).

BACKGROUND:The American Heart Association created the Life's Simple 7 (LS7) metrics to promote cardiovascular health by achieving optimal levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, physical activity, diet, weight, and smoking status. The degree to which psychosocial factors such as stress and depression impact one's ability to achieve optimal cardiovascular health is unclear, particularly among hypertensive African Americans. METHODS:Cross-sectional analyses included 1,819 African Americans with hypertension participating in the Jackson Heart Study (2000-2004). Outcomes were LS7 composite and individual component scores (defined as poor, intermediate, ideal). High perceived chronic stress was defined as the top quartile of Weekly Stress Inventory scores. High depressive symptoms were defined as Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale scores of ≥16. We compared four groups: high stress alone; high depressive symptoms alone; high stress and high depressive symptoms; low stress and low depressive symptoms (reference) using linear regression for total LS7 scores and logistic regression for LS7 components. RESULTS:Participants with both high stress and depressive symptoms had lower composite LS7 scores (B [95% confidence interval-CI]= -0.34 [-0.65 to -0.02]) than those with low stress and depressive symptoms in unadjusted and age/sex-adjusted models. They also had poorer health status for smoking (OR [95% CI]= 0.52 [0.35-0.78]) and physical activity [OR (95% CI)= 0.71 (0.52-0.95)] after full covariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS:The combination of high stress and high depressive symptoms was associated with poorer LS7 metrics in hypertensive African Americans. Psychosocial interventions may increase the likelihood of engaging in behaviors that promote optimal cardiovascular health.

Hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Black women have high rates of hypertension compared to women of other racial or ethnic groups and are disproportionately affected by psychosocial stressors such as racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and caregiving stress. Evidence suggests that stress is associated with incident hypertension and hypertension risk. Stress management is associated with improvements improved blood pressure outcomes. The purpose of this review is to synthesize evidence on effects of stress management interventions on blood pressure in Black women. A comprehensive search of scientific databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria included studies that were: (1) primary research that tested an intervention; (2) in the English language; (3) included African-American women; (4) incorporated stress in the intervention; (5) included blood pressure as an outcome; and (6) were US based. Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. Ten (56%) studies tested meditation-based interventions, two (11%) tested coping and affirmation interventions, and six (33%) tested lifestyle modification interventions that included stress management content. Thirteen of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Reductions in blood pressure were observed in all of the meditation-based interventions, although the magnitude and statistical significance varied. Comprehensive lifestyle interventions were also efficacious for reducing blood pressure, although the relative contribution of stress management versus behavior modification could not be evaluated. Coping and affirmation interventions did not affect blood pressure. Most of the reviewed studies included small numbers of Black women and did not stratify results by race and gender, so effects remain unclear. This review highlights the urgent need for studies specifically focusing on Black women. Given the extensive disparities in cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, whether stress management can lower blood pressure and improve primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention among Black women is an important question for future research.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exacerbated the structural inequities in healthcare and the challenges of translating research into public discourse. This article highlights key antiracist considerations, presents previously noted core challenges, and provides recommendations for writing and reporting. Importantly, this article contributes to combating racialized science in the biomedical community.

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).