Passiglia F, Cinquini M, Bertolaccini L, et al. Benefits and harms of lung cancer screening by chest computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2574-85. 34236916.

Lau A, Kong FYS, Fairley CK, et al. Azithromycin or doxycycline for asymptomatic rectal chlamydia trachomatis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:2418-27. 34161706.

Heath PT, Galiza EP, Baxter DN, et al. Safety and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1172-83. 34192426.

WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group; Shankar-Hari M, Vale CL, Godolphin PJ, et al. Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2021;326:499-518. 34228774.

Dankiewicz J, Cronberg T, Lilja G, et al. Hypothermia versus normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:2283-94. 34133859.

Frias JP, Davies MJ, Rosenstock J, et al. Tirzepatide versus semaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:503-15. 34170647.

In this commentary, the authors reflect on the successes and challenges of Australia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and lessons learned.

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Virologic failure in HIV predicts the development of drug resistance and mortality. Genotypic resistance testing (GRT), which is the standard of care after virologic failure in high-income settings, is rarely implemented in sub-Saharan Africa.

B-cell depletion with rituximab is commonly used for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that is refractory to conventional therapy, but it yields variable responses. We hypothesized that high B-cell activating factor (BAFF) levels after rituximab can cause disease flares, thereby limiting its effectiveness.

Screening mammography guidelines do not explicitly consider racial differences in breast cancer epidemiology, treatment, and survival.

Older adults dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid have particularly high food insecurity prevalence and health care use.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Reducing ASCVD risk through primary prevention strategies has been shown to be effective; however, the role of aspirin in primary prevention remains unclear. The decision to recommend aspirin has been limited by the difficulty clinicians and patients face when trying to balance benefits and harms. In 2016, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force addressed this issue by determining the risk level at which prophylactic aspirin generally becomes more favorable, recommending aspirin above a risk cut point (>10% estimated ASCVD risk). In 2019, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association issued a guideline on the primary prevention of CVD that recommends low-dose aspirin might be considered for the primary prevention of ASCVD among select adults aged 40 to 70 years who are at higher ASCVD risk but not at increased risk for bleeding. Here, 2 experts discuss how to apply this guideline in general and to a patient in particular while answering the following questions: How do you assess ASCVD risk, and what is the role, if any, of the coronary artery calcium score?; At what risk threshold of benefits and harms would you recommend aspirin or not?; and How do you help a patient come to a decision about starting or stopping aspirin therapy?

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin have been extensively compared. However, population-based studies comparing GIB rates among different DOACs are limited.

This article summarizes the ACP/Annals COVID-19 Vaccine Forum VI held on 8 October 2021.

Gonorrhea and chlamydia rates have risen to record-high levels in the United States over the past decade. Because these infections are often asymptomatic, effective clinical management relies on screening of asymptomatic patients, particularly women younger than 25 years and men who have sex with men. If undetected and untreated, gonorrhea and chlamydia can lead to infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain and can facilitate HIV acquisition and transmission. Primary care providers need to be aware of recent changes in recommended treatments for both infections.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the United States' largest integrated health care delivery system, serving over 9 million enrollees at nearly 1300 health care facilities. In addition to providing health care to the nation's military veterans, the VHA has a research and development program, trains thousands of medical residents and other health care professionals, and conducts emergency preparedness and response activities. The VHA has been celebrated for delivering high-quality care to veterans, early adoption of electronic medical records, and high patient satisfaction. However, the system faces challenges, including implementation of an expanded community care program, modernization of its electronic medical records system, and providing care to a population with complex needs. The position paper offers policy recommendations on VHA funding, the community care program, medical and health care professions training, and research and development.

Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397:2182-93. 33991479.

Although racial/ethnic disparities in U.S. COVID-19 death rates are striking, focusing on COVID-19 deaths alone may underestimate the true effect of the pandemic on disparities. Excess death estimates capture deaths both directly and indirectly caused by COVID-19.

RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial. Lancet. 2021;397:2049-59. 34000257.