Suicide is a growing public health problem, with the national rate in the United States increasing by 30% from 2000 to 2016.

Smaller (<3-mm) infarctions are associated with stroke and stroke mortality, but relationships with cognitive decline are unknown.

In May 2019, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved an update to the 2013 joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients who are at risk for suicide. This guideline provides health care providers with a framework by which to screen for, evaluate, treat, and manage the individual needs and preferences of VA and DoD patients who may be at risk for suicide.

Whether statin type influences hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence or mortality in chronic hepatitis B or C virus infection is unknown.

One of the hallmarks of a trustworthy clinical guideline or guidance statement is a comprehensive process for disclosure of interests (DOI) and management of conflicts of interest (COIs). The American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) aims to disclose all health care-related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years. Persons complete disclosures at the start of their participation and are required to update them over the course of their involvement with the CGC, including before each CGC meeting. A DOI-COI Review and Management Panel reviews the disclosures; flags potential conflicts; grades the COI as low-, moderate-, or high-level; and manages the person's participation accordingly. A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions. Participants with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but may participate in all discussions. A low-level COI results in no role restrictions. All disclosures and COI management decisions are publicly reported.

Urgent, individualized interventions to reduce firearm access, such as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs, colloquially known as "red flag" orders), provide a rapid, focused response when risk for imminent firearm violence is high. Studies to date suggest such interventions are most commonly used to prevent suicide and are effective. Authorizing legislation has often been enacted after public mass shootings but, to our knowledge, there have been only 2 reported cases of ERPO use in efforts to prevent mass shootings. California enacted the nation's first ERPO statute, which took effect in January 2016. The authors are evaluating that statute's implementation and effectiveness and are seeking to obtain court records for all 414 cases occurring in 2016 to 2018. Based on 159 records received thus far, this article presents an aggregate summary and individual histories for a preliminary series of 21 cases in which ERPOs were used in efforts to prevent mass shootings. Most subjects were male and non-Hispanic white; the mean age was 35 years. Most subjects made explicit threats and owned firearms. Four cases arose primarily in relation to medical or mental health conditions, and such conditions were noted in 4 others. Fifty-two firearms were recovered. As of early August 2019, none of the threatened shootings had occurred, and no other homicides or suicides by persons subject to the orders were identified. It is impossible to know whether violence would have occurred had ERPOs not been issued, and the authors make no claim of a causal relationship. Nonetheless, the cases suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere. Further evaluation would be helpful.