Search

Highly efficacious and tolerable treatments that cure hepatitis C viral (HCV) infection exist today, increasing the feasibility of disease elimination. However, large healthcare systems may not be fully prepared for supporting recommended actions due to knowledge gaps, inadequate infrastructure and uninformed policy direction. Additionally, the HCV cascade of care is complex, with many embedded barriers, and a significant number of patients do not progress through the cascade and are thus not cured. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate a large healthcare system's HCV screening rates, linkage to care efficiency, and provider testing preferences. Patients born during 1945-1965, not previously HCV positive or tested from within the Electronic Health Record (EHR), were identified given that three-quarters of HCV-infected persons in the United States are from this Birth Cohort (BC). In building this HCV testing EHR prompt, non-Birth Cohort patients were excluded as HCV-specific risk factors identifying this population were not usually captured in searchable, structured data fields. Once completed, the BC prompt was released to primary care locations. From July 2015 through December 2016, 11.5% of eligible patients (n = 9,304/80,556) were HCV antibody tested (anti-HCV), 3.8% (353/9,304) anti-HCV positive, 98.1% (n = 311/317) HCV RNA tested, 59.8% (n = 186/311) HCV RNA positive, 86.6% (161/186) referred and 76.4% (n = 123/161) seen by a specialist, and 34.1% (n = 42/123) cured of their HCV. Results from the middle stages of the cascade in this large healthcare system are encouraging; however, entry into the cascade-HCV testing-was performed for only 11% of the birth cohort, and the endpoint-HCV cure-accounted for only 22% of all infected. Action is needed to align current practice with recommendations for HCV testing and treatment given that these are significant barriers toward elimination., Competing Interests: Alexander Geboy previously served as a speaker for Gilead Science, Inc. Medical Affairs Advisory Program on Hepatitis C Virus. Dawn A. Fishbein, MD, MS previously served as a speaker for Gilead Science, Inc. Medical Affairs Advisory Program on Hepatitis C Virus, and has received research funding from Gilead Science, Inc. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: ACE angioedema has not been characterized in comparison with angioedema from other causes in acute hospitalized patients. Methods: We retrospectively compared ACE-angioedema and non-ACE angioedema patients from January 2013 to May 2017. Results: Of 855 cases screened, 575 met the inclusion criteria of angioedema diagnosis and an electronic medical record. Of these, 297 (51.7%) had ACE angioedema and 278 had angioedema from other causes, of these 31 who were taking an ACE inhibitor that was not considered to be the cause of angioedema (ACE other cause). At least 80% of cases in all groups were African American. Epinephrine was prescribed in 21% of ACE angioedema cases. One-third of patients in all groups were admitted to the ICU, and about 25% required intubation. Previous history of ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema was found in 63 of 278 non-ACE cause angioedema patients (23%) and in 23 (8%) in the ACE cause group. Conclusion: ACE angioedema was the cause of half of angioedema admissions over a 4.5-year period. Mortality, morbidity, and treatment did not differ between the groups. Patients on ACE inhibitors were often treated with medications known not to be effective for ACE angioedema. Over one-fourth of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor had a previous history of ACE angioedema, and 31 patients taking ACE inhibitors were diagnosed with non-ACE angioedema. Regardless of the etiology of angioedema, 25% of patients required airway protection in the form of intubation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controversy remains as to which patients with small bowel obstruction (SBO) need immediate surgery and which may be managed conservatively. This study evaluated the ability of clinical risk factors to predict the failure of nonoperative management of SBO. The electronic medical record was used to identify all patients with SBO over one year. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were recorded. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors predicting need for surgery. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify risk factors that influence need and timing for surgery. Two hundred nineteen consecutive patients were included. Most patients did not have a prior history of SBO (75%), radiation therapy (92%), or cancer (70%). The majority had undergone previous abdominal or pelvic surgery (82%). Thirty-five per cent of patients ultimately underwent laparotomy. Univariate analysis showed that persistent abdominal pain, abdominal distention, nausea and vomiting, guarding, obstipation, elevated white blood cell count, fever present 48 hours after hospitalization, and high-grade obstruction on computed tomography (CT) scan were significant predictors of the need for surgery. Multivariable analysis revealed that persistent abdominal pain or distention (hazard ratio [HR], 3.04; P = 0.013), both persistent abdominal pain and distention (HR, 4.96; P < 0.001), fever at 48 hours (HR, 3.66; P = 0.038), and CT-determined high-grade obstruction (HR, 3.45; P = 0.017) independently predicted the need for surgery. Eighty-five per cent of patients with none of these four significant risk factors were successfully managed nonoperatively. Conversely, 92 per cent of patients with three or more risk factors required laparotomy. This analysis revealed four readily evaluable clinical parameters that may be used to predict the need for surgery in patients presenting with SBO: persistent abdominal pain, abdominal distention, fever at 48 hours, and CT findings of high-grade obstruction. These factors were combined into a predictive model that may of use in predicting failure of nonoperative SBO management. Early operation in these patients should decrease length of stay and diagnostic costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a pathogen that can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Early detection of MRSA colonization by screening nasal swabs may be important in the management of burn-injured patients. However, studies examining its use in this population are limited. The aim of this study was to study the utility of admission MRSA screening nasal swabs and determine if being positive for MRSA on admission impacted outcomes.Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of burn patients who presented to a single regional burn center between June 2012 and December 2014. Electronic medical records and charts were reviewed for patient demographics and management. MRSA screening swabs were obtained from the anterior nares of burn patients upon admission. Patients without a MRSA nasal swab within 48h of admission were excluded. Outcomes analyzed included overall length of stay, ICU admission and length of stay, mechanical ventilation, procedure count, time to excision, and wound complications after normalizing to total body surface area burn size (%TBSA).Results: During the study period, 601 patients received a MRSA screening nasal swab upon admission. Of these, 24 patients screened positive for MRSA (4%). Patients who screened positive for MRSA had a significantly increased mean length of stay (3.95v 2.36 days; p<0.05) and number of surgical procedures (1.92v 1.06; p<0.05). Positively screened patients also had a higher proportion of wound infections (50% v 18.2%; p<0.05), half of which were caused by MRSA. Subsequent graft complications were seen in 50% of patients with a wound complication. Only 2 positively screened patients were started on empiric antibiotics.Conclusions: Burn patients who screened positive for MRSA had greater lengths of stay, more surgical procedures, and higher wound complications. Early identification of MRSA colonized patients in this patient population might allow for treatment modifications that improve outcomes. Further study is warranted in a prospective clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]