Citations

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

ABSTRACT Background Implementation of checklists has been shown to be effective in improving patient safety. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of a checklist for daily care processes into clinical practice of pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) with limited resources. Methods Prospective before–after study in eight PICUs from China, Congo, Croatia, Fiji, and India after implementation of a daily checklist into the ICU rounds. Results Seven hundred and thirty-five patients from eight centers were enrolled between 2015 and 2017. Baseline stage had 292 patients and post-implementation 443. The ICU length of stay post-implementation decreased significantly [9.4 (4–15.5) vs. 7.3 (3.4–13.4) days, p = 0.01], with a nominal improvement in the hospital length of stay [15.4 (8.4–25) vs. 12.6 (7.5–24.4) days, p = 0.055]. The hospital mortality and ICU mortality between baseline group and post-implementation group did not show a significant difference, 14.4% vs. 11.3%; p = 0.22 for each. There was a variable impact of checklist implementation on adherence to various processes of care recommendations. A decreased exposure in days was noticed for; mechanical ventilation from 42.6% to 33.8%, p < 0.01; central line from 31.3% to 25.3%, p < 0.01; and urinary catheter from 30.6% to 24.4%, p < 0.01. Although there was an increased utilization of antimicrobials (89.9–93.2%, p < 0.01). Conclusions Checklists for the treatment of acute illness and injury in the PICU setting marginally impacted the outcome and processes of care. The intervention led to increasing adherence with guidelines in multiple ICU processes and led to decreased length of stay.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

AbstractQTc interval prolongation can lead to life‐threatening complications such as Torsade de Pointes (TdP), ventricular tachycardia (VT) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). It can occur with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) but comparative real‐world analyses on the incidence and complication rates are scarce. We retrospectively reviewed all cancer patients treated with TKI therapy at Mayo Clinic between January 2005 and December 2018 and had at least two ECGs (before and after TKI). For each TKI type, we determined the administration rate and incidence of QTc prolongation. QTc prolongation was defined as a corrected QT interval (by Fridericia formula) ≥450 ms in men and ≥470 ms in women. A total of 618 cancer patients were included with 902 TKI administrations, of which 654 (72.5%) were accounted for by pazopanib, sunitinib, imatinib, nilotinib and dasatinib. QTc prolongation (any grade) was reported in 28.8%, most commonly with nilotinib (38.7%) and dasatinib (41.7%). A QTc interval ≥500 ms and a QTc increase ≥60 ms was documented in 46 and 63 administrations, respectively. Life‐threatening toxicity was seen in 14 cases (5.4% of QTc prolongation cases) including VT in 9, SCD in 3 and TdP in two administrations. The response to QTc prolongation was: discontinuation in 68%, dose reduction in 13.5%, temporary hold in 8.1% and no action in 10.4%. In conclusion, QTc prolongation with TKI therapy is very common (∼1/3 of cases) and in 5% (1.7% overall) associated with life‐threatening complications. These data support recommendations for careful ECG monitoring in cancer patients undergoing TKI therapy.

Background. Despite demonstrated efficacy, patient decision aids (DAs) are rarely used in clinical practice in the absence of coverage mandates. Deciding whether to pursue a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a major, preference-sensitive decision—ideal for exploring implementation of a DA. Methods. We conducted a type II effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial at 6 LVAD programs using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design. Using the RE-AIM framework, we collected both quantitative and qualitative outcomes, including a checklist collected by study staff for each enrolled patient regarding DA use and interviews with LVAD program clinicians preintervention, 6 months postintervention, and at the conclusion of the study. Results. From June 2015 to January 2017, 248 patients and their caregivers were enrolled. A total of 69 interviews were conducted with 48 clinicians at 3 time points. The DA reached 95% of eligible patients. Adoption was 100%, as all sites approached agreed to participate in the trial. Interviews revealed several themes related to the implementation of the DA: clinicians had a strong desire to ensure patients were informed and embraced the DA. Despite this, they reported communication challenges among their team that impeded implementation. Five of the 6 sites have maintained use of the DA following the trial; 1 site reported concerns about decreased procedural volume with use of the DA as a reason for discontinuation. Conclusions. In this hybrid trial, a DA for patients considering LVADs and their caregivers demonstrated high reach. Adoption and implementation were facilitated by a strong desire to ensure that patients were well informed. Future dissemination research and practice should attend to concerns about procedure volume and coverage mandates and facilitate ongoing communication at sites using the DA.

Background and Aims Portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) was previously associated with a single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs7175922 in aromatase (cytochrome P450 family 19 subfamily A member 1 [CYP19A1]). We sought to determine whether genetic variants and metabolites in the estrogen signaling pathway are associated with POPH. Approach and Results We performed a multicenter case‐control study. POPH patients had mean pulmonary artery pressure >25 mm Hg, pulmonary vascular resistance >240 dyn‐sec/cm−5, and pulmonary artery wedge pressure ≤15 mm Hg without another cause of pulmonary hypertension. Controls had advanced liver disease, right ventricular (RV) systolic pressure <40 mm Hg, and normal RV function by echocardiography. We genotyped three SNPs in CYP19A1 and CYP1B1 using TaqMan and imputed SNPs in estrogen receptor 1 using genome‐wide markers. Estrogen metabolites were measured in blood and urine samples. There were 37 patients with POPH and 290 controls. Mean age was 57 years, and 36% were female. The risk allele A in rs7175922 (CYP19A1) was significantly associated with higher levels of estradiol (P = 0.02) and an increased risk of POPH (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12‐4.91; P = 0.02) whereas other SNPs were not. Lower urinary 2‐hydroxyestrogen/16‐α‐hydroxyestrone (OR per 1‐ln decrease = 2.04; 95% CI, 1.16‐3.57; P = 0.01), lower plasma levels of dehydroepiandrosterone‐sulfate (OR per 1‐ln decrease = 2.38; 95% CI, 1.56‐3.85; P < 0.001), and higher plasma levels of 16‐α‐hydroxyestradiol (OR per 1‐ln increase = 2.16; 95% CI, 1.61‐2.98; P < 0.001) were associated with POPH. Conclusions Genetic variation in aromatase and changes in estrogen metabolites were associated with POPH.

SummaryDaily self‐weighing is a weight management behaviour that requires a scale; however, scale ownership may be cost‐prohibitive for some patients. Our objective was to understand the proportion of primary care patients with a scale at home, and factors associated with home scale access, to potentially inform future interventions that facilitate scale access. Cross sectional survey of 216 adult patients from three primary care clinics: mixed‐income urban/suburban (n = 68); mixed‐income urban (n = 70); low‐income urban (n = 74). The dependent variable was presence of a home scale; bivariate associations were conducted with variables including demographics, insurance type, clinic setting and self‐reported height/weight. Mean age was 53 years; 71% women; 71% racial minority; mean body mass index 32 kg/m2. Overall, 56% had a home scale. Most (79%) white patients owned a scale, compared to 46% of racial minority patients (P < .01); 33% of low‐income patients owned scale, compared to over 66% of patients at the clinics serving mixed‐income populations (P < .01). Most low‐income urban clinic patients do not own a home scale. Because self‐weighing is an effective weight‐management behaviour, clinicians could consider assessing scale access, and future research should assess the health impact of providing scales to patients with overweight/obesity who desire weight loss or maintenance.

Abstract Aims: We sought to determine which echocardiographic markers of left ventricular (LV) remodeling and diastolic dysfunction can contribute as incremental and independent prognostic information in addition to current clinical risk markers of ischemic LV systolic dysfunction in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial.Methods and Results: The cohort consisted of 1511 of 2136 patients in STICH for whom baseline transmitral Doppler (E/A ratio) could be measured by an echocardiographic core laboratory blinded to treatment and outcomes, and prognostic value of echocardiographic variables was determined by a Cox regression model. E/A ratio was the most significant predictor of mortality amongst diastolic variables with lowest mortality for E/A closest 0.8, although mortality was consistently low for E/A 0.6 to 1.0. Mortality increased for E/A <0.6 and > 1.0 up to approximately 2.3, beyond which there was no further increase in risk. Larger LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) and E/A <0.6 and >1.0 had incremental negative effects on mortality when added to a clinical multivariable model, where creatinine, LVESVI, age, and E/A ratio accounted for 74% of the prognostic information for predicting risk. LVESVI and E/A ratio were stronger predictors of prognosis than New York Heart Association functional class, anemia, diabetes, history of atrial fibrillation, and stroke.Conclusions: Echocardiographic markers of advanced LV remodeling and diastolic dysfunction added incremental prognostic value to current clinical risk markers. LVESVI and E/A ratio outperformed other markers and should be considered as standard in assessing risks in ischemic heart failure. E/A closest to 0.8 was the most optimal filling pattern.