Citations

ObjectiveTo describe people with gout who were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and hospitalized and to characterize their outcomes.MethodsData on patients with gout hospitalized for COVID‐19 between March 12, 2020, and October 25, 2021, were extracted from the COVID‐19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the demographics, comorbidities, medication exposures, and COVID‐19 outcomes including oxygenation or ventilation support and death.ResultsOne hundred sixty‐three patients with gout who developed COVID‐19 and were hospitalized were included. The mean age was 63 years, and 85% were male. The majority of the group lived in the Western Pacific Region (35%) and North America (18%). Nearly half (46%) had two or more comorbidities, with hypertension (56%), cardiovascular disease (28%), diabetes mellitus (26%), chronic kidney disease (25%), and obesity (23%) being the most common. Glucocorticoids and colchicine were used pre‐COVID‐19 in 11% and 12% of the cohort, respectively. Over two thirds (68%) of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization. COVID‐19‐related death was reported in 16% of the overall cohort, with 73% of deaths documented in people with two or more comorbidities.ConclusionThis cohort of people with gout and COVID‐19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death. This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID‐19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.

ImportanceSelf-measured blood pressure (SMBP) with commercially available connected smartphone applications may help patients effectively use SMBP measurements.ObjectiveTo determine if enhanced SMBP paired with a connected smartphone application was superior to standard SMBP for blood pressure (BP) reduction or patient satisfaction.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted among 23 health systems participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, and included patients who reported having uncontrolled BP at their last clinic visit, a desire to lower their BP, and a smartphone. Enrollment and randomization occurred from August 3, 2019, to December 31, 2020, which was followed by 6 months of follow-up for each patient. Analysis commenced shortly thereafter.InterventionsEligible participants were randomly assigned to enhanced SMBP using a device that paired with a connected smartphone application (enhanced) or a standard device (standard). Participants received their device in the mail, along with web-based educational materials and phone-based support as needed. No clinician engagement was undertaken, and the study provided no special mechanisms for delivering measurements to clinicians for use in BP management.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReduction in systolic BP, defined as the difference between clinic BP at baseline and the most recent clinic BP extracted from electronic health records at 6 months.ResultsEnrolled participants (1051 enhanced [50.0%] vs 1050 standard [50.0%]; 1191 women [56.7%]) were mostly middle-aged or older (mean [SD] age, 58 [13] years), nearly a third were Black or Hispanic (645 [31%]), and most were relatively comfortable using technology (mean [SD], 4.1 [1.1] of 5). The mean (SD) change in systolic BP from baseline to 6 months was −10.8 (18) mm Hg vs −10.6 (18) mm Hg (enhanced vs standard: adjusted difference, −0.19 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.83 to 1.44;P = .81). Secondary outcomes were mostly null, except for documented attainment of BP control to lower than 140/<90 mm Hg, which occurred in 32% enhanced vs 29% standard groups (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.34). Most participants were very likely to recommend their SMBP device to a friend (70% vs 69%).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that enhanced SMBP paired with a smartphone application is not superior to standard SMBP for BP reduction or patient satisfaction.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03796689

Context.— Neoadjuvant systemic therapy refers to the use of systemic agent(s) for malignancy prior to surgical treatment and has recently emerged as an option for most breast cancer patients eligible for adjuvant systemic therapy. Consequently, treated breast carcinomas have become routine specimens in pathology practices. A standard protocol has not yet been universally adopted for the evaluation and reporting of these specimens. The American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system recognizes the challenges in staging breast carcinomas after neoadjuvant treatment and provides important data points but does not currently provide detailed guidance in estimating the residual tumor burden in the breast and lymph nodes. The Residual Cancer Burden system is the only Web-based system that quantifies treatment response as a continuous variable using residual tumor burden in the breast and the lymph nodes. Objective.— To provide clarifications and guidance for evaluation and reporting of postneoadjuvant breast specimens, discuss issues with the current staging and reporting systems, and provide specific suggestions for future modifications to the American Joint Committee on Cancer system and the Residual Cancer Burden calculator. Data Sources.— English-language literature on the subject and the data from the I-SPY 2, a multicenter, adaptive randomization phase 2 neoadjuvant platform trial for early-stage, high-risk breast cancer patients. Conclusions.— This article highlights challenges in the pathologic evaluation and reporting of treated breast carcinomas and provides recommendations and clarifications for pathologists and clinicians. It also provides specific recommendations for staging and discusses future directions.

Importance Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD. Objective To develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD. Evidence Review A systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved. Findings Of the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline’s 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.

Abstract Background Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is an emerging minimally invasive surgical treatment for residual, recurrent, and new primary head and neck cancers in previously irradiated fields, with limited evidence for its oncological effectiveness. Methods A retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive cases performed in 16 high-volume international centers before August 2018 was conducted (registered at clinicaltrials.gov [NCT04673929] as the RECUT study). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, disease-specific survivals (DSS), and local control (LC) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, with subgroups compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling for multivariable analysis. Maximally selected rank statistics determined the cut point for closest surgical resection margin based on LC. Results Data for 278 eligible patients were analyzed, with median follow-up of 38.5 months. Two-year and 5-year outcomes were 69.0% and 62.2% for LC, 71.8% and 49.8% for OS, 47.2% and 35.7% for disease-free survival, and 78.7% and 59.1% for disease-specific survivals. The most discriminating margin cut point was 1.0 mm; the 2-year LC was 80.9% above and 54.2% below or equal to 1.0 mm. Increasing age, current smoking, primary tumor classification, and narrow surgical margins (≤1.0 mm) were statistically significantly associated with lower OS. Hemorrhage with return to theater was seen in 8.1% (n = 22 of 272), and 30-day mortality was 1.8% (n = 5 of 272). At 1 year, 10.8% (n = 21 of 195) used tracheostomies, 33.8% (n = 66 of 195) used gastrostomies, and 66.3% (n = 53 of 80) had maintained or improved normalcy of diet scores. Conclusions Data from international centers show TORS to treat head and neck cancers in previously irradiated fields yields favorable outcomes for LC and survival. Where feasible, TORS should be considered the preferred surgical treatment in the salvage setting.

AbstractBackgroundMany hospitalized patients do not understand or agree with their clinicians about their discharge plan. However, the effect of disagreement on discharge outcomes is unknown.ObjectiveTo measure the correlation between patient‐clinician care agreement and discharge outcomes.DesignA prospective cohort study was performed from September 2019 to March 2020 (Rochester, MN, USA).Setting and ParticipantsInternal medicine patients and their primary clinician (resident, advanced practice clinician or attending) hospitalized from September 2019‐March 2020 at Mayo Clinic Hospital. Participants were independently surveyed following hospital day #3 ward rounds regarding the goals of the hospitalization and discharge planning.Main Outcome and MeasuresPatient–clinician agreement for main diagnosis, patient's main concern, and four domains of discharge planning was assessed. Readiness for hospital discharge, delayed discharge, and 30‐day readmission was measured. Then, associations between patient‐clinician agreement, delayed discharge, and 30‐day readmissions were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf the 436 patients and clinicians, 17.7% completely agreed about what needs to be accomplished before dismissal, 40.8% agreed regarding discharge date, and 71.1% agreed regarding discharge location. In the multivariable model, patient–clinician agreement scores were not significantly correlated with discharge outcomes. Patient–clinician agreement on discharge location was higher for those discharged to home (81.5%) versus skilled nursing facility (48.5%) or assisted living (42.9%) (p < .0001). The agreement on the expected length of stay was highest for home‐goers (45.9%) compared to skilled nursing (32.0%) or assisted living (21.4%) (p = .004).ConclusionsPatients and their clinicians frequently disagree about when and where a patient will go after hospitalization, particularly for those discharged to a skilled nursing facility. While disagreement did not predict discharge outcomes, our findings suggest opportunities to improve effective communication and promote shared mental models regarding discharge earlier in the hospital stay.

Abstract Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), linked to antecedent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, is associated with considerable morbidity. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by vaccination might also decrease MIS-C likelihood. Methods In a multicenter, case-control, public health investigation of children ages 5–18 years hospitalized from 1 July 2021 to 7 April 2022, we compared the odds of being fully vaccinated (2 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine ≥28 days before hospital admission) between MIS-C case-patients and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. These associations were examined by age group, timing of vaccination, and periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance using multivariable logistic regression. Results We compared 304 MIS-C case-patients (280 [92%] unvaccinated) with 502 controls (346 [69%] unvaccinated). MIS-C was associated with decreased likelihood of vaccination (adjusted OR [aOR]: .16; 95% CI: .10–.26), including among children ages 5–11 years (aOR: .22; 95% CI: .10–.52), ages 12–18 years (aOR: .10; 95% CI: .05–.19), and during the Delta (aOR: .06; 95% CI: .02–.15) and Omicron (aOR: .22; 95% CI: .11–.42) variant-predominant periods. This association persisted beyond 120 days after the second dose (aOR: .08; 95% CI: .03–.22) in 12–18-year-olds. Among all MIS-C case-patients, 187 (62%) required intensive care unit admission and 280 (92%) vaccine-eligible case-patients were unvaccinated. Conclusions Vaccination with 2 doses of BNT162b2 is associated with reduced likelihood of MIS-C in children ages 5–18 years. Most vaccine-eligible hospitalized patients with MIS-C were unvaccinated.

Background The intensive care unit environment exposes patients to stressful conditions contributing to distressing symptoms. Discomfort is an infrequently and inconsistently described symptom experienced by intensive care unit patients. Objective To complete a narrative literature review to summarize the currently available literature on discomfort assessment in critical care practice and identify knowledge gaps to direct future intervention research. Methods A review of the currently available literature was guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. No parameters were set for publication years or specific study designs. Inclusion criteria were patients aged at least 18 years, description of patient reports of discomfort in the intensive care unit, and English language. Results This narrative review includes 10 studies that used 4 distinct self-reported, discomfort-related symptom assessment instruments. Two studies assessed overall discomfort. Only 1 assessment instrument, Inconforts des Patients de Reanimation, is validated for use in the intensive care unit. Conclusion The reviewed literature highlights the current gap in discomfort symptom assessment during the intensive care unit stay. An assessment instrument specific for intensive care unit–related discomfort, such as the Inconforts des Patients de Reanimation, would allow for prompt recognition and mitigation of intensive care unit–related patient discomfort.

Background Patients with self-reported antibiotic allergies have a higher cost of care, more frequent infections with resistant bacteria and worse health outcomes than patients without antibiotic allergies. Ultimately, less than 5% of patients who report a penicillin allergy have a clinically significant immune-mediated hypersensitivity reaction when tested. As 10%–30% of the population of pregnant patients are colonised for group B Streptococcus (GBS) and guidelines recommend penicillin as the treatment of choice for GBS, current recommendations support penicillin allergy testing in pregnant patients who report an allergy. Methods and intervention In this quality improvement project, nursing staff used an algorithm outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria to determine which patients were eligible to have penicillin allergy testing completed. Penicillin allergy testing consisted of a skin test using benzylpenicilloyl polylysine (Pre-Pen), penicillin G potassium, amoxicillin and alkaline hydrolysis mix (penicilloate) as a prick skin test, followed by intradermal skin test and finally an oral challenge with either amoxicillin or penicillin. Patient outcomes were analysed to evaluate the impact of the intervention. Results Of the 1266 patients receiving prenatal care during the intervention, 236 (19%) reported a history of penicillin allergy, and 212 if these were eligible for testing. 150 of the eligible patients were offered penicillin allergy testing. 101 patients (67%) completed testing and 49 (33%) declined testing. Seven patients (7%) had positive penicillin allergy testing, while 94 patients (93%) had negative penicillin allergy testing and were immediately de-labelled as penicillin allergic. Seventeen of the de-labelled patients subsequently tested positive for GBS colonisation, and all received intrapartum penicillin without adverse events. Conclusions Pursuing penicillin allergy testing for pregnant patients with reported penicillin allergy is a safe and feasible approach, allowing for allergy de-labelling and safe, guideline-driven antimicrobial therapy during subsequent labour and delivery hospitalisations. Cost-effectiveness of the allergy testing and impact on later episodes of care should be further investigated.