No abstract

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS). Nevertheless, patient adherence to recommended intervals varies, potentially diminishing benefit from screening. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and major radiology and oncology conference archives between April 28, 2014, and December 17, 2020. Eligible studies mentioned patient adherence to the recommendations of Lung-RADS. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020189326). We identified 24 eligible studies for qualitative summary, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled adherence rate was 57% (95% confidence interval: 46%-69%) for defined adherence (e.g., an annual incidence screen was performed within 15 mo) among 6689 patients and 65% (95% confidence interval: 55%-75%) for anytime adherence among 5085 patients. Large heterogeneity in adherence rates between studies was observed (I 2 ¼ 99% for defined adherence, I 2 ¼ 98% for anytime adherence). Heterogeneous adherence rates were associated with Lung-RADS scores, with significantly higher adherence rates among Lung-RADS 3 to 4 than Lung-RADS 1 to 2 (p < 0.05). Patient adherence to Lung-RADS-recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical LCS programs in the United States, especially among patients with results of Lung-RADS categories 1 to 2. To improve adherence rates, future research may focus on implementing tailored interventions after identifying

BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and dementia are leading causes of mortality and disability in the US. T2DM has been associated with dementia; however, causality has not been clearly established. This study tested inferred causality between T2DM and dementia status using a Mendelian randomization approach.MethodsParticipants (50+ years) from the 2010 wave of the Health and Retirement Study of European or African genetic ancestry were included (n = 10,322). History of T2DM was self-reported. Cognitive status (dementia, cognitive impairment non-dementia, or normal cognition) was defined from clinically validated cognitive assessments. Cumulative genetic risk for T2DM was determined using a polygenic score calculated from a European ancestry T2DM genome-wide association study by Xue et al. (2018). All models were adjusted for age, sex, education, APOE-ε4 carrier status, and genetic principal components. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between cumulative genetic risk for T2DM and cognitive status. To test inferred causality using Mendelian randomization, we used the inverse variance method.ResultsAmong included participants, 20.9% had T2DM and 20.7% had dementia or cognitive impairment. Among European ancestry participants, T2DM was associated with 1.66 times odds of cognitive impairment non-dementia (95% confidence interval: 1.55–1.77) relative to normal cognition. A one standard deviation increase in cumulative genetic risk for T2DM was associated with 1.30 times higher odds of T2DM (95% confidence interval: 1.10–1.52). Cumulative genetic risk for T2DM was not associated with dementia status or cognitive-impaired non-dementia in either ancestry (P &gt; 0.05); lack of association here is an important assumption of Mendelian randomization. Using Mendelian randomization, we did not observe evidence for an inferred causal association between T2DM and cognitive impairment (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.90–1.21).DiscussionConsistent with prior research, T2DM was associated with cognitive status. Prevention of T2DM and cognitive decline are both critical for public health, however, this study does not provide evidence that T2DM is causally related to impaired cognition. Additional studies in other ancestries, larger sample sizes, and longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these results.