Citations

BACKGROUND: The impact of English proficiency on gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) outcomes remains unclear. In this analysis, we compare inpatient GIB outcomes between patients with English as their primary language (EPL) and those with a primary language other than English (PLOE). METHODS: Using the 2019 State Inpatient Databases for New Jersey, Maryland, and Michigan, we created an analysis cohort of GIB hospitalizations using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes. Patients were stratified by primary language (EPL vs PLOE) and type of bleeding (variceal upper GI bleeding [VUGIB], nonvariceal upper GI bleeding [NVUGIB], and lower GI bleeding (LGIB)]. Regression analyses were used to compare mortality, 30-day readmissions, and length of stay. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In the cohort, 5.5%–10% of the patients spoke a primary language other than English. Endoscopy utilization was lower among patients with PLOE vs EPL for NVUGIB (17.2% vs 21.2%, P < 0.001) and LGIB (26.3% vs 29.2%, P = 0.027). Patients with PLOE had higher odds of dying of VUGIB (aOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16–2.48) and LGIB (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.22–2.12). Patients with PLOE were also more likely to be readmitted after NVUGIB (aOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.64–1.81). However, after controlling for the percentage of patients with PLOE discharged from each hospital, the disparities in mortality and readmissions were no longer detected. DISCUSSION: Disparities exist in GIB outcomes among patients with PLOE, but these gaps narrow at hospitals with higher percentages of patients with PLOE. Cultural and linguistic competence may improve outcomes in this vulnerable group.

OBJECTIVES: A number of trials related to critical care pharmacotherapy were published in 2022. We aimed to summarize the most influential publications related to the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients in 2022. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, prospective studies, or systematic review/meta-analyses of adult critically ill patients assessing a pharmacotherapeutic intervention and reporting clinical endpoints published between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022, were included in this article. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles from a systematic search and the Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update were included and stratified into clinical domains based upon consistent themes. Consensus was obtained on the most influential publication within each clinical domain utilizing an a priori defined three-round modified Delphi process with the following considerations: 1) overall contribution to scientific knowledge and 2) novelty to the literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: The systematic search and Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology Pharmacotherapy Literature Update yielded a total of 704 articles, of which 660 were excluded. The remaining 44 articles were stratified into the following clinical domains: emergency/neurology, cardiovascular, gastroenterology/fluids/nutrition, hematology, infectious diseases/immunomodulation, and endocrine/metabolic. The final article selected from each clinical domain was summarized following a three-round modified Delphi process and included three randomized controlled trials and three systematic review/meta-analyses. Article topics summarized included dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives during mechanical ventilation, beta-blocker treatment in the critically ill, restriction of IV fluids in septic shock, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in critically ill adults, duration of antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia, and low-dose methylprednisolone treatment in severe community-acquired pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: This concise review provides a perspective on articles published in 2022 that are relevant to the pharmacotherapeutic care of critically ill patients and their potential impact on clinical practice.

See the Reply by Semla and Steinman in this issue.

Mesothelioma is a rare cancer originating in mesothelial surfaces of the peritoneum, pleura, and other sites. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) focus on peritoneal mesothelioma (PeM). The NCCN Guidelines for PeM provide recommendations for workup, diagnosis, and treatment of primary as well as previously treated PeM. The diagnosis of PeM may be delayed because PeM mimics other diseases and conditions and because the disease is so rare. The pathology section was recently updated to include new information about markers used to identify mesothelioma, which is difficult to diagnose. The term “malignant” is no longer used to classify mesotheliomas, because all mesotheliomas are now defined as malignant.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis provide health care providers with a practical, consistent framework for screening and evaluating a spectrum of clinical presentations and breast lesions. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in the field, including representation from medical oncology, gynecologic oncology, surgical oncology, internal medicine, family practice, preventive medicine, pathology, diagnostic and interventional radiology, as well as patient advocacy. The NCCN Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Panel meets at least annually to review emerging data and comments from reviewers within their institutions to guide updates to existing recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s decision-making and discussion surrounding the most recent updates to the guideline’s screening recommendations.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals address the complex and varied needs of cancer survivors. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize recent guideline updates and panel discussions pertaining to sleep disorders, fatigue, and cognitive function in cancer survivors.

Abstract Background Evidence-based recommendations regarding the influence of diet on inflammatory conditions of the pouch after restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch–anal anastomosis (IPAA) are limited. Methods We analyzed dietary patterns at enrollment in a prospective registry of patients with 1 of 4 inflammatory conditions of the pouch (acute pouchitis, chronic antibiotic-dependent pouchitis, chronic antibiotic refractory pouchitis, and Crohn’s disease of the pouch). We analyzed dietary intake by disease activity at enrollment and then compared dietary patterns among patients who remained in remission throughout the 12-month follow-up to those patients who experienced a disease relapse. We also compared dietary patterns among patients with inflammatory conditions of the pouch to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommended daily goals. Results Among 308 patients, there were no differences in dietary patterns among patients with 1 of the 4 disease states at enrollment. Additionally, among the 102 patients in remission at baseline, there were no significant differences noted among patients who went on to experience a disease flare in the 12 months after enrollment compared to those patients who remained in remission. However, patients with inflammatory conditions of the pouch demonstrated decreased intake of several food groups and macronutrients including dairy, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fiber when compared to USDA recommendations. Conclusions In a prospective cohort, we demonstrated no impact of dietary patterns on disease activity. The relative deficiencies in several food groups and macronutrients among patients after IPAA indicate the potential role of targeted nutritional counseling in this population.

Goals: To better understand the characteristics, treatment approaches, and outcomes of patients with esophageal lichen planus (ELP). Background: ELP is a rare, often unrecognized and misdiagnosed disorder. Data on this unique patient population are currently limited to small, single-center series. Study: A multicenter, retrospective descriptive study was conducted of adults diagnosed with ELP over a 5-year period, between January 1, 2015, and October 10, 2020, from 7 centers across the United States. Results: Seventy-eight patients (average age 65 y, 86% female, 90% Caucasian) were included. Over half had at least 1 extraesophageal manifestation. Esophageal strictures (54%) and abnormal mucosa (50%) were frequent endoscopic findings, with the proximal esophagus the most common site of stricture. Approximately 20% had normal endoscopic findings. Topical steroids (64%) and/or proton pump inhibitors (74%) dominated management; endoscopic response favored steroids (43% vs. 29% respectively). Almost half of the patients required switching treatment modalities during the study period. Adjunctive therapies varied significantly between centers. Conclusions: Given its at times subtle clinical and endoscopic signs, a high index of suspicion and biopsy will improve ELP diagnosis, especially in those with extraesophageal manifestations. Effective therapies are lacking and vary significantly. Prospective investigations into optimal treatment regimens are necessary.

Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.