OBJECTIVE: To assess the inclusion of individuals\' perspectives in the development of osteoporosis Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for primary fracture prevention in postmenopausal women.
METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic search across guideline databases and (CPGs) developing organizations websites. Using the AGREE II tool, we assessed the quality of the guidelines, with particular emphasis on the inclusion of patients, or representatives in the development process. We also examined if women\'s perspectives were considered at the recommendations level and explored the potential association between the inclusion of patients\' values and preferences with the quality of the CPGs.
RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 491 eligible CPGs, of which 33 were finally included. The majority of the CPGs were developed by scientific societies (63.6%), primarily from Europe (39.4%) and North America (30.3%). One in every four (24.2%) guidelines explicitly included individuals\' perspectives in their development, and one in ten (12.1%) included research evidence about this aspect to support their recommendations. The domains with the lowest mean scores in the quality assessment were applicability (42.4%), rigor of development (44.7%), and stakeholder involvement (45.7%), and 61% were recommended for use according to our assessment. Guidelines of higher quality were more likely to include women\'s perspective in their development (mean difference 39.31, P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of women\'s perspectives into the process of developing guidelines for primary fracture prevention in osteoporosis remains inadequate. Our findings serve as a call for guideline developers to improve this situation, and for users, and policymakers to be aware of these limitations, when using or implementing guidelines in this field.

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients\' physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey. This clinical consensus statement focuses on the importance and the characteristics of prevention and rehabilitation designed for HTx recipients.

Little is known either about either physical activity patterns, or other lifestyle-related prevention measures in heart transplantation (HTx) recipients. The history of HTx started more than 50 years ago but there are still no guidelines or position papers highlighting the features of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx. The aims of this scientific statement are (i) to explain the importance of prevention and rehabilitation after HTx, and (ii) to promote the factors (modifiable/non-modifiable) that should be addressed after HTx to improve patients\' physical capacity, quality of life and survival. All HTx team members have their role to play in the care of these patients and multidisciplinary prevention and rehabilitation programmes designed for transplant recipients. HTx recipients are clearly not healthy disease-free subjects yet they also significantly differ from heart failure patients or those who are supported with mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, prevention and rehabilitation after HTx both need to be specifically tailored to this patient population and be multidisciplinary in nature. Prevention and rehabilitation programmes should be initiated early after HTx and continued during the entire post-transplant journey. This clinical consensus.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is an essential supportive agent for chemotherapy-induced severe myelosuppression. We proposed two clinical questions (CQ): CQ #1, \"Does primary prophylaxis with G-CSF benefit chemotherapy for non-round cell soft tissue sarcoma (NRC-STS)?\" and CQ #2, \"Does G-CSF-based intensified chemotherapy improve NRC-STS treatment outcomes?\" for the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 of the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.
METHODS: A literature search was performed on the primary prophylactic use of G-CSF for NRC-STSs. Two reviewers assessed the extracted papers and analyzed overall survival, incidence of febrile neutropenia, infection-related mortality, quality of life, and pain.
RESULTS: Eighty-one and 154 articles were extracted from the literature search for CQs #1 and #2, respectively. After the first and second screening, one and two articles were included in the final evaluation, respectively. Only some studies have addressed these two clinical questions through a literature review.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical questions were converted to future research questions because of insufficient available data. The statements were proposed: \"The benefit of primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STS\" and \"The benefit of intensified chemotherapy with primary G-CSF prophylaxis is not clear in NRC-STSs.\" G-CSF is often administered as primary prophylaxis when chemotherapy with severe myelosuppression is administered. However, its effectiveness and safety are yet to be scientifically proven.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion eligible for lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) when using the systemic coronary risk estimation 2 (SCORE2) on apparently healthy individuals.
METHODS: Individuals aged 50-64 years were randomly invited to the Swedish cardiopulmonary bioimage study (SCAPIS, n=30,154). Participants with previous atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes mellitus, or chronic kidney disease were excluded. The 10-year risk of CVD was estimated using the SCORE2 equation and the multicell chart. Eligibility for LLT was estimated according to the 2021 European Society of Cardiology CVD prevention guidelines. Presence of coronary atherosclerosis was determined using coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA).
RESULTS: Among 26,570 apparently healthy individuals, 32% had high, and 4% had very-high 10-year CVD risk, according to the SCORE2 equation. Among high and very-high risk individuals, 99% had LDL-C levels above guideline goals making 35% of the total population eligible for LLT. Of those eligible, undergoing imaging, 38% had no signs of coronary atherosclerosis according to CCTA. Using the SCORE2 chart, 52% of the population were eligible for LLT, of which 44% had no signs of coronary atherosclerosis. In those with high or very-high risk, ongoing LLT was reported in 7% and another 11% received LLT within six months after study participation.
CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all apparently healthy individuals with high and very-high CVD risk, or 35% of the total population, were eligible for LLT according to guidelines, and a large proportion had no signs of atherosclerosis. Compared with the SCORE2 equation, the SCORE2 chart resulted in more individuals being eligible for LLT.
UNASSIGNED: What proportion of an apparently healthy middle-aged population would be eligible for lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) according to the 2021 ESC guidelines when using SCORE2? What proportion of those eligible for LLT have atherosclerosis according to coronary imaging?
RESULTS: According to the guidelines, nearly all individuals categorized as high and very-high risk according to the SCORE2 equation, or 35% of the total population, were eligible for LLT, of which 38% had no signs of coronary atherosclerosis. These proportions increased when the SCORE2 multicell chart was used.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing SCORE2 and the ESC guidelines would result in more than one in three apparently healthy middle-aged individuals being eligible for LLT. A significant proportion would have no signs of coronary atherosclerosis.

UNASSIGNED: In the US, women have similar cardiovascular death rates as men. However, less is known about sex differences in statin use for primary prevention and associated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Statin prescriptions using electronic health records were examined in patients without ASCVD (myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization or ischemic stroke) between 2013 and 2019. Guideline-directed statin intensity (GDSI) at index (at least moderate intensity, defined per pooled-cohort equation) and follow-up visits were compared between sexes across ASCVD risk groups, defined by the pooled-cohort equation. Cox regression hazard ratios were calculated for statin use and outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), and all-cause mortality) stratified by sex. Interaction terms (statin and sex) were applied.
UNASSIGNED: Among 282,298 patients, (mean age ∼ 50 years) 17.1 % women and 19.5 % men were prescribed any statin at index visit. Time to GDSI was similar between sexes, but the proportion of high-risk women on GDSI at follow-up were lower compared to high-risk men (2-years: 27.7 vs 32.0 %, and 5-years: 47.2 vs 55.2 %, p < 0.05). When compared to GDSI, no statin use was associated with higher risk of MI and ischemic stroke/TIA among both sexes. High-risk women on GDSI had a lower risk of mortality (HR=1.39 [1.22-1.59]) vs. men (HR=1.67 [1.50-1.86]) of similar risk (p value interaction=0.004).
UNASSIGNED: In a large contemporary healthcare system, there was underutilization of statins across both sexes in primary prevention. High-risk women were less likely to remain on GDSI compared to high-risk men. GDSI significantly improved the survival in both sexes regardless of ASCVD risk group. Future strategies to ensure continued use of GDSI, specifically among women, should be explored.

Personalizing risk assessment and treatment decisions for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) rely on pooled cohort equations and increasingly coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. A growing body of evidence supports that elevated CAC scores correspond to progressively elevated ASCVD risk, and that scores of ≥100, ≥300, and ≥1000 denote risk that is equivalent to certain secondary prevention populations. This has led consensus guidelines to incorporate CAC score thresholds for guiding escalation of preventive therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals, initiation of non-statin lipid lowering medications, and use of low-dose daily aspirin. As data on CAC continues to grow, more decision pathways will incorporate CAC score cutoffs to guide management of blood pressure and cardiometabolic medications. CAC score is also being used to enrich clinical trial study populations for elevated ASCVD risk, and to screen for subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in patients who received chest imaging for other diagnostic purposes.

The outdated cardiovascular disease risk calculator has been reported to overestimate cardiovascular disease risk for a contemporary Australian population, and does not include relevant variables, such as socioeconomic disadvantage, which has been shown to increase the incidence of both heart attack and stroke. The 2023 Australian Guideline for Assessing and Managing Cardiovascular Disease Risk marks a major milestone as the first update to Australia\'s cardiovascular disease prevention guideline in over a decade. The new guideline may help to refine and recategorise risk estimates, hence improving the discriminatory and predictive value of the new calculator. The new Australian Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator expresses risk scores as a percentage estimate of a person\'s probability of dying or being hospitalised due to cardiovascular disease within the next 5 years. The new calculator expresses risk scores as low (less than 5%), intermediate (5% to less than 10%), or high (10% or higher) risk over 5 years. Reclassification factors built into the new calculator are designed to help clinicians individualise risk estimates. These factors include ethnicity (e.g. First Nations status), family history of premature cardiovascular disease, severe mental illness, kidney disease and coronary artery calcium score. The new calculator also uses optional diabetes-specific variables (supporting a more granular cardiovascular disease risk assessment of people with type 2 diabetes). People who meet the clinically determined high-risk criteria (chronic kidney disease, familial hypercholesterolaemia) should not progress through the Australian Cardiovascular Disease risk calculator, but move straight to management. For a person with a cardiovascular disease risk score recorded from the outdated calculator, clinicians may want to reassess their risk using the new calculator the next time the person attends.

BACKGROUND: A lack of consensus exists across guidelines as to which risk model should be used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our objective was to determine potential improvements in the number needed to treat (NNT) and number of events prevented (NEP) using different risk models in patients eligible for risk stratification.
METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort was assembled from primary care patients in Ontario, Canada between January 1st, 2010, to December 31st, 2014 and followed for up to 5 years. Risk estimation was undertaken in patients 40-75 years of age, without CVD, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs), a recalibrated FRS (R-FRS), Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2), and the low-risk region recalibrated SCORE2 (LR-SCORE2).
RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 47,399 patients (59% women, mean age 54). The NNT with statins was lowest for SCORE2 at 40, followed by LR-SCORE2 at 41, R-FRS at 43, PCEs at 55, and FRS at 65. Models that selected for individuals with a lower NNT recommended statins to fewer, but higher risk patients. For instance, SCORE2 recommended statins to 7.9% of patients (5-year CVD incidence 5.92%). The FRS, however, recommended statins to 34.6% of patients (5-year CVD incidence 4.01%). Accordingly, the NEP was highest for the FRS at 406 and lowest for SCORE2 at 156.
CONCLUSIONS: Newer models such as SCORE2 may improve statin allocation to higher risk groups with a lower NNT but prevent fewer events at the population level.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program.
METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations.
RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person\'s overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.