Systematic reviews (SRs) have the potential to contribute uniquely to the evaluation of sex and gender differences (termed "sex effects"). This article describes the reporting of sex effects by SRs on interventions for depression, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia). It includes SRs published since 1 October 2009 that evaluate medications, behavioral interventions, exercise, quality improvement, and some condition-specific treatments. The reporting of sex effects by primary randomized, controlled trials is also examined. Of 313 eligible SRs (86 for depression, 159 for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 68 for chronic pain), few (n = 29) reported sex effects. Most SRs reporting sex effects used metaregression, whereas 9 SRs used subgroup analysis or individual-patient data meta-analysis. The proportion of SRs reporting the sex distribution of primary studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia. Primary randomized, controlled trials also infrequently reported sex effects, and most lacked an adequate sample size to examine them. Therefore, all SRs should report the proportion of women enrolled in primary studies and evaluate sex effects using appropriate methods whenever power is adequate.

The total population health benefits and costs of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for people who inject drugs (PWID) in the United States are unclear.

Recent postmarketing trials produced conflicting results about the risk for hospitalized heart failure (hHF) associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, creating uncertainty about the safety of these antihyperglycemic agents.

Climate change could have a devastating effect on human and environmental health. Potential effects of climate change on human health include higher rates of respiratory and heat-related illness, increased prevalence of vector-borne and waterborne diseases, food and water insecurity, and malnutrition. Persons who are elderly, sick, or poor are especially vulnerable to these potential consequences. Addressing climate change could have substantial benefits to human health. In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) recommends that physicians and the broader health care community throughout the world engage in environmentally sustainable practices that reduce carbon emissions; support efforts to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change; and educate the public, their colleagues, their community, and lawmakers about the health risks posed by climate change. Tackling climate change is an opportunity to dramatically improve human health and avert dire environmental outcomes, and ACP believes that physicians can play a role in achieving this goal.

Although clinical factors affecting a person's susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection are well-understood, little is known about what drives differences in incidence across long-term care settings.

Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatment options for the same condition and may be useful for developing clinical practice guidelines.

In 2014, only 26 states and the District of Columbia chose to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansions for low-income adults.

Clinicians and patients need updated evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of diabetes medications to make informed treatment choices.

Update of the 2009 USPSTF recommendation on aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and the 2007 recommendation on aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC).

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States.

The balance between potential aspirin-related risks and benefits is critical in primary prevention.

The mainstay for addressing conflicts of interest in health care is disclosure of personal financial ties to industry. However, this approach fails to capture the complexity of industry interactions that are built into clinical practice. Further, the policy climate focuses on physicians and traditional pharmaceutical marketing.

Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare syndrome of severe, rapid-onset hepatic dysfunction-without prior advanced liver disease-that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Intensive care and liver transplantation provide support and rescue, respectively.

The HIV Organ Policy Equity (HOPE) Act now allows transplantation of organs from HIV-positive living and deceased donors to HIV-positive individuals with end-stage organ disease in the United States. Although clinical experience with such transplants is limited to a small number of deceased-donor kidney transplants from HIV-positive to HIV-positive persons in South Africa, unprecedented HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive liver transplantations and living-donor kidney transplantations are also now on the horizon. Initially, all HIV-positive-to-HIV-positive transplantations will occur under research protocols with safeguards and criteria mandated by the National Institutes of Health. Nevertheless, this historic change brings ethical opportunities and challenges. For HIV-positive individuals needing an organ transplant, issues of access, risk, and consent must be considered. For potential HIV-positive donors, there are additional ethical challenges of privacy, fairness, and the right to donate. Careful consideration of the ethical issues involved is critical to the safe and appropriate evaluation of this novel approach to transplantation.