. (https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.12531) The Task Force found moderate-certainty evidence that screening is beneficial for nonpregnant adults (age range, 35–70) who are overweight (i.e., body-mass index [BMI], ≥25 kg/m2) or obese (BMI, ≥30 kg/m2) and have no symptoms of diabetes. Referring patients for, or directly providing, effective preventive interventions is recommended (B recommendation).  The main change from the 2015 recommendation is the lower age threshold for screening — 35 rather than 40. The decision was made because of the increasingly younger age of onset for diabetes and the known benefits of intervention at a wide range of ages. Notably, the USPSTF found little direct evidence that screening improves clinical outcomes;  Lifestyle modifications and metformin are considered appropriate interventions for preventing or delaying onset of diabetes; however, metformin is not approved for this specific use by the U.S. FDA. ---NO NO NO NO NO NO NO you cant do that..    Aringer M et al. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria item performance. Ann Rheum Dis 2021 Feb 10; 80:775. (https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219373) Diagnosising SLE—its always lupus till its not lupus but new diagnosis criteria In 2019, the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology published the following classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE; Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 78:1151):·                     Positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) test with titer ≥1:80 is a required “entry criterion.”·                     If the ANA criterion is met, points are assigned from seven clinical categories and three immunologic test categories; a criterion is not counted if another cause is more likely than SLE. A score ≥10 is considered to be consistent with SLE. When these criteria were validated, sensitivity for SLE was 96%, and specificity was 93%. But ANA what about ANASensitivity and specificity of ANA were 99.5% and 19.4%, respectively. NEXT  Gómez-Outes A et al. Meta-analysis of reversal agents for severe bleeding associated with direct oral anticoagulants. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021 Jun 22; 77:2987. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.061)Use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is associated with about a 3% annual risk for major bleeding, though that varies by age, comorbidity profile, and concomitant therapies.  investigators examined clinical outcomes associated with the use of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4PCC), idarucizumab, or andexanet for severe DOAC-associated bleeding.These drugs are greatBut if you do bleed then about 20% of the time we cant get hemostasis with mortality around 18% DESPITE getting reversal agents.. This is good to talk to your patients about— The risk of bleeding in 1 and 33 per year..Out of every 3300 people treated about 20 people will have a bleed that isn’t controlled and 18 of those people will die.It sounds like a lot but remember without these drugs the risk of stroke is much much higher, of course depending on your comorbid conditions. NEXT  Cardiovascular risk prediction in type 2 diabetes before and after widespread screening: a derivation and validation study - ClinicalKeyLancet, The, 2021-06-12, Volume 397, Issue 10291, Pages 2264-2274, Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd Formulas for cardiovascular (CV) risk calculations are based on population studies and generally include diabetes as a major risk factor. Do formulas that were derived when diabetes usually was diagnosed at later stages overesti(continued)