American college of Physicians

What is the added risk for death from smoking? Logistic regression has become the most common statistical method to answer such questions in the biomedical literature. However, the typical analyses estimate odds ratios, a metric too often misunderstood and misinterpreted. Although estimates of risks, and their differences and ratios, offer transparent clinical interpretations, commonly used statistical models have known methodological shortcomings. "Standardization" through modeling, weighting, or matching offers a solution. The goals of this article are to review classical concepts of standardization and to link them to regression modeling for causal inference. The authors also describe approaches based on weighting and matching compared with regression-based standardization. Using an example of smoking from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study, they explain the value of standardization, long used in medicine and public health, to estimate risks and their differences and ratios for binary outcomes. The authors demonstrate how standard statistical software using models that best fit the data and respect underlying biological or clinical processes can reexpress results in clinically meaningful metrics. The Supplement offers examples with common software packages.

Description: The American College of Physicians' Population Health and Medical Science Committee (PHMSC) developed this best practice advice to inform clinicians about what is currently known about the benefits and harms of cannabis or cannabinoids in the management of chronic noncancer pain and to provide advice for clinicians counseling patients seeking this therapy. Methods: The PHMSC considers areas where evidence is uncertain or emerging or practice does not follow the evidence to provide clinical advice based on a review and assessment of scientific work, including systematic reviews and individual studies. Sources of evidence included a living systematic review on cannabis and cannabinoid treatments for chronic noncancer pain and a series of living systematic reviews and primary studies. Best practice advice 1a: Clinicians should counsel patients about the benefits and harms of cannabis or cannabinoids when patients are considering whether to start or continue to use cannabis or cannabinoids to manage their chronic noncancer pain. Best practice advice 1b: Clinicians should counsel the following subgroups of patients that the harms of cannabis or cannabinoid use for chronic noncancer pain are likely to outweigh the benefits: young adult and adolescent patients, patients with current or past substance use disorder, patients with serious mental illness, and frail patients and those at risk for falling. Best practice advice 2: Clinicians should advise against starting or continuing to use cannabis or cannabinoids to manage chronic noncancer pain in patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding or actively trying to conceive. Best practice advice 3: Clinicians should advise patients against the use of inhaled cannabis to manage chronic noncancer pain.

Rural communities throughout the United States experience disparities in health and access to health care. Low population densities, isolating terrain, and vast geographic distances to other population centers create barriers to attracting and retaining physicians and other health professionals. The characteristics of rural communities also pose barriers to facilitating robust economic activity conducive to the production of health and the presence of health care facilities. As such, rural communities have faced high levels of hospital closures and "diseases of despair," such as opioid misuse and suicide. The heterogeneity of rural geographies and population characteristics produces unique and differing challenges across communities that require tailored policy interventions. Interventions that are culturally appropriate for rural communities must be adopted that address diseases and health conditions that impact rural populations and the related social and economic conditions that create and perpetuate these diseases and health conditions. Policymakers must invest in the economies, social services, and infrastructure of rural communities, especially those programs that provide health coverage and services to them. Ensuring access to telehealth is a critical component of expanding health care access. Medical education institutions and the medical community at large have a responsibility to equip physicians and physicians-in-training to care for rural communities and provide opportunities for trainees to practice in rural settings. These institutions must be supported through public policy that incentivizes the recruitment and retainment of a qualified physician workforce in rural communities.

Obesity is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality with health consequences that crosscut most medical specialties. Despite the emergence of effective and promising new therapies, many impediments to comprehensive obesity care remain. As part of their commitment to improving obesity care, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and its Council of Subspecialty Societies (CSS) held a summit on 24 October 2023 to identify barriers to and opportunities for collaborative action in the domains of physician education, health care policy and care delivery, and addressing weight bias. This report summarizes the summit proceedings and provides a postsummit synthesis from ACP and CSS. Key themes were centered on knowledge, advocacy, action, and compassion, including the need for culture change, paradigm shifts, and stakeholder engagement and collaboration; a focus on empowerment of both clinicians and patients; the importance of knowing patients as people to help address social determinants of health; the need to address learned helplessness; and the importance of embracing artificial intelligence and technology as disruptive innovations. Recommendations for next steps for collaborative action include leveraging and improving already available educational and clinical resources, developing obesity education and care standards that incorporate patients' perspectives and address social determinants of health, developing community and public-private partnerships to improve access and public awareness, and coordinating messaging and policy advocacy efforts that align with mitigating the longstanding obesity epidemic.

Between 2019 and 2021, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) developed clinical guidelines for managing sickle cell disease (SCD), covering acute pain, acute neurological events, and other complications. However, these guidelines lacked implementation strategies for incarcerated individuals, a vulnerable group with unique challenges. In 2024, an ASH special panel of SCD and carceral health experts convened to address acute SCD care in custody settings, emphasizing timely access to emergency care, including acute management for acute strokes, pain management, and fever evaluation. The ASH special panel recommended pre-arranged emergency plans for transfer to specialized facilities, continuity of care with SCD specialists, and adherence to community-level care standards. Limitations included insufficient population data and absent chronic care guidelines. The ASH special panel urged that future ASH guidelines address SCD management tailored to carceral settings to reduce morbidity and ensure equitable care.

Description: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline for clinicians caring for adults with episodic migraine headache (defined as 1 to 14 headache days per month) in outpatient settings. Methods: ACP based these recommendations on systematic reviews of the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments to prevent episodic migraine, patients' values and preferences, and economic evidence. ACP evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the following interventions: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (lisinopril), angiotensin II-receptor blockers (candesartan and telmisartan), antiseizure medications (valproate and topiramate), β-blockers (metoprolol and propranolol), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist-gepants (atogepant or rimegepant), CGRP monoclonal antibodies (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine and venlafaxine), and a tricyclic antidepressant (amitriptyline). ACP used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to analyze the effects of pharmacologic treatment on the following outcomes: migraine frequency and duration, number of days medication was taken for acute treatment of migraine, frequency of migraine-related emergency department visits, migraine-related disability, quality of life and physical functioning, and discontinuations due to adverse events. In addition, adverse events were captured through U.S. Food and Drug Administration medication labels and eligible studies. Recommendations: In this guideline, ACP makes recommendations for clinicians to initiate monotherapy for episodic migraine prevention in nonpregnant adults in the outpatient setting as well as alternative approaches if initial treatments are not tolerated or result in an inadequate response. All 3 ACP recommendations have conditional strength and low-certainty evidence. Clinical considerations provide additional context for physicians and other clinicians.

Description: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been defined by the High-Level Expert Group on AI of the European Commission as "systems that display intelligent behaviour by analysing their environment and taking actions-with some degree of autonomy-to achieve specific goals." Artificial intelligence has the potential to support guideline planning, development and adaptation, reporting, implementation, impact evaluation, certification, and appraisal of recommendations, which we will refer to as "guideline enterprise." Considering this potential, as well as the lack of guidance for the use of AI in guidelines, the Guidelines International Network (GIN) proposes a set of principles for the development and use of AI tools or processes to support the health guideline enterprise. Methods: A GIN working group on AI developed these principles, informed by the results of a scoping review and practical examples, through iterative discussion. Recommendations: Eight principles were identified to adhere to when using AI in the guideline context: transparency, preplanning, additionality, credibility, ethics, accountability, compliance, and evaluation. These complementary principles are described in a comprehensive way, but they do not provide detailed instructions on how to use specific AI tools. Although these principles are expected to apply across different contexts and stages of the guideline enterprise, details on their implementation have some degree of flexibility. Guideline development groups choosing to use AI will be able to adequately implement the principles if they ensure aspects such as structured reporting on the use of AI tools, involvement of experts in AI, and allocation of funding for the adequate use of AI tools. The GIN principles may support guideline developers in the responsible and transparent use of AI to ensure trustworthy guidelines.

Objective The objective of this scoping review is to develop a list of items for potential inclusion in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for network meta-analysis (NMA), scoping reviews (ScRs), and rapid reviews (RRs). Introduction The PRISMA extensions for NMA and ScRs were published in 2015 and 2018. However, since then, their methodologies and innovations, including automation, have evolved. There is no reporting guideline for RRs. In 2020, an updated PRISMA statement was published, reflecting advances in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. These advances are not yet incorporated into these PRISMA extensions. We will update our previous methods scoping reviews to inform the update of PRISMA-NMA and PRISMA-ScR as well as the development of the PRISMA-RR reporting guidelines. Inclusion criteria This review will include any study designs evaluating the completeness of reporting, or offering reporting guidance, or assessing methods relevant to NMA, ScRs, or RRs. Editorial guidelines and tutorials that describe items related to reporting completeness will also be eligible. Methods We will follow the JBI guidance for scoping reviews. For each PRISMA extension, we will (1) search multiple electronic databases from inception, (2) search for unpublished studies, and (3) scan the reference lists of included studies. There will be no language limitations. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by 2 researchers independently. A third researcher will resolve discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analyses of the identified items. The final list of items will be considered for potential inclusion in the relevant PRISMA reporting guidelines. Review registration NMA protocol (OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7BKWY); ScR protocol (OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MTA4P); RR protocol (OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3JCPE); EQUATOR registration link: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/

In recognition of accelerating health care spending and alignment with the American College of Physicians (ACP) principles of promoting high-value care, the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) developed a framework to standardize its approach to identifying, appraising, and considering economic evidence in the development of ACP clinical guidelines. This article presents the CGC's process for incorporating economic evidence, which encompasses cost-effectiveness analyses, economic outcomes in randomized controlled trials, and resource utilization (intervention cost) data. Economic evidence is one component of ACP recommendations. The CGC first and foremost assesses the certainty of evidence for clinical net benefit of interventions; it then considers patient values and preferences, and only then considers economic evidence to develop recommendations.