Antihypertensive Medication Classes and the Risk of Dementia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesTo systematically review and synthesize the evidence on differential associations between antihypertensive medication (AHM) classes and the risk of incident dementia.DesignSystematic review and random effects frequentist network meta-analysis. Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane library were searched from origin to December 2019.Setting and participantsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies that compared associations of different AHM classes with incident all-cause dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease over at least 1 year of follow-up.MeasuresAll cause dementia and/or Alzheimer's disease.ResultsFifteen observational studies and 7 RCTs were included. Data on AHM classes were available for 649,790 participants and dementia occurred in 19,600 (3.02%). Network meta-analysis showed that in observational studies, treatment with either calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with lower dementia risks than treatment with other antihypertensives: CCBs vs angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) (HR=0.84, 95% CI 0.74-0.95), beta blockers (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95) and diuretics (HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01) and ARBs vs ACE inhibitors (HR=0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.97), beta blockers (HR=0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.99), and diuretics (HR=0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.05). There were insufficient RCTs to create a robust network based on randomized data alone.Conclusions and ImplicationsRecommending CCBs or ARBs as preferred first-line antihypertensive treatment may significantly reduce the risk of dementia. If corroborated in a randomized setting, these findings reflect a low-cost and scalable opportunity to reduce dementia incidence worldwide.     

The Effect of Medication Reconciliation via a Patient Portal on Medication Discrepancies: A Randomized Noninferiority Study

BackgroundMedication reconciliation has become standard care to prevent medication transfer errors. However, this process is time-consuming but could be more efficient when patients are engaged in medication reconciliation via a patient portal.ObjectivesTo explore whether medication reconciliation by the patient via a patient portal is noninferior to medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician.Design (including intervention)Open randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Patients were randomized between medication reconciliation via a patient portal (intervention) or medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician at the preoperative screening (usual care).Setting and ParticipantsPatients scheduled for elective surgery using at least 1 chronic medication were included.MeasuresThe primary endpoint was the number of medication discrepancies compared to the electronic nationwide medication record system (NMRS). For the secondary endpoint, time investment of the pharmacy technician for the medication reconciliation interview and patient satisfaction were studied. Noninferiority was analyzed with an independent t test, and the margin was set at 20%.ResultsA total of 499 patients were included. The patient portal group contained 241 patients; the usual care group contained 258 patients. The number of medication discrepancies was 2.6 ± 2.5 in the patient portal group and 2.8 ± 2.7 in the usual care group. This was not statistically different and within the predefined noninferiority margin. Patients were satisfied with the use of the patient portal tool. Also, the use of the portal can save on average 6.8 minutes per patient compared with usual care.Conclusions and ImplicationsMedication reconciliation using a patient portal is noninferior to medication reconciliation by a pharmacy technician with respect to medication discrepancies, and saves time in the medication reconciliation process. Future studies should focus on identifying patient characteristics for successful implementation of patient portal medication reconciliation.     

The Prevalence of Frailty Among Older Adults Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesTo investigate the prevalence of frailty in older adults living with dementia and explore the differences in medication use according to frailty status.DesignSystematic review of published literature from inception to August 20, 2020.Setting and ParticipantsAdults age ≥65 years living with dementia in acute-care, community and residential care settings.MethodsA systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, APA PscyInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened records and conducted quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsSixteen articles met the inclusion criteria, with 7 studies conducted in acute care setting and 9 studies in community-dwelling adults. Five studies recruited people with dementia exclusively, and 11 studies were conducted in older populations that included individuals with dementia diagnosis. Among studies conducted in acute care setting, the prevalence of frailty ranged from 50.8% to 91.8% compared with studies in community-dwelling setting, which reported a prevalence of 24.3% to 98.9%. With respect to medication exposure, 3 studies documented medication use according to frailty status but not dementia status. Higher medications use, measured as total number of medications was reported in frail [7.0 ± 4.0 (SD) ?12.0 ± 9.0 (SD)] compared with nonfrail participants [6.1 ± 3.1(SD) ?10.4 ± 3.8 (SD)].Conclusions and ImplicationsCurrent data suggests a wide range of frailty prevalence in individuals with dementia. Future studies should systematically document frailty in adults living with dementia and its impact on medication use.     

Deficiency Citations on Inappropriate Psychotropics Use Related to Care for Behavioral Symptoms of Dementia

ObjectivesThe Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) initiated the National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes in 2012, which helped decrease antipsychotics use. However, inappropriate use of antipsychotics and other psychotropic medications to control behavioral symptoms associated with dementia persists. Nursing homes (NHs) can be flagged for inappropriate psychotropics use as a deficiency of care citation (F-758 tag). The purpose of this study was to comprehensively explore inappropriate psychotropic medication use deficiency, F-758 citations, in caring for NH residents with dementia.DesignA mixed-methods study was performed.Setting and ParticipantsDuring the first quarter of 2018 (January–March), 3526 NHs were surveyed, of which 642 received F-758 tags. Of the 642, the sample was confined to the 444 NHs that received the citation for the care of residents with dementia. Information on deficiencies was obtained from 2018 Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting data. Inspection reports for deficiencies were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Nursing Home Compare and ProPublica.MethodsQuantitative analysis was used to examine the frequency of involved psychotropic medications, scope/severity of F-758 deficiency citations, and reasons for the citations. Reasons for F-758 citations by psychotropic medication categories and scope/severity of the citations were also examined using χ² tests. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using content analysis with an inductive coding approach to summarize the inspection reports.ResultsAntipsychotics were the most involved drug category for F-758 tag citations. The 3 most common reasons for F-758 citations included failure to identify and/or monitor behavioral symptoms (178 NHs), attempt gradual drug reduction (131 NHs), and maintain 14-day limitations on Pro Re Nata (PRN) psychotropic orders (121 NHs). Compared with those with no involvement of antipsychotic drugs, facilities with antipsychotics-related F-758 tags had higher rates of failure to identify/monitor behavioral symptoms (P < .001), attempt gradual drug reduction (P < .001), and provide adequate indications for psychotropics use (P < .001). NHs with F-758 tags related to inappropriate antianxiety medication use had a higher prevalence of failure to maintain 14-day limitation on PRN orders (P < .001) and provide nonpharmacologic interventions (P < .001).Conclusions and ImplicationsThis study suggests areas for improvement that could potentially reduce inappropriate psychotropics use. Supporting quality of dementia care workforce and improving cooperation within healthcare staff and professionals are recommended to ensure proper nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions.     

两性霉素B在恶性血液病合并侵袭性真菌病患者中的临床应用

 目的 分析中国人民解放军总医院恶性血液病合并侵袭性真菌病(IFD)住院患者两性霉素B的临床用药情况,为指导临床合理用药提供依据。方法 选择中国人民解放军总医院2021年1—12月血液病科和造血干细胞移植病房罹患恶性血液病合并IFD并使用两性霉素B治疗的住院患者为研究对象,分析其人口学特征、影像学检查、真菌实验室检查、两性霉素B药品的用法用量等资料。结果 共纳入131例患者,其中临床诊断26例(19.85%), 拟诊52例(39.69%),未确定53例(40.46%)。28.57%(34/119)患者(1,3)-β-D葡聚糖试验阳性,13.45%(16/119) 半乳甘露聚糖试验阳性,44.64%(50/112)患者真菌培养阳性。共培养64株真菌,以念珠菌属居多(55株)。 两性霉素B用法用量情况:111例(84.73%)患者使用两性霉素B脱氧胆酸盐(d-AmB),61例 (46.56%)患者以静脉滴注途径给药,13例(9.92%)患者使用0.9%氯化钠注射液作为溶媒,55例(41.98%)患者使用地塞米松磷酸钠作为治疗前用药。109例(83.21%)患者采用抗真菌联合用药方案,以d-AmB联合伏立康唑居多。用于静脉滴注和雾化吸入的d-AmB 药物利用指数(DUI)值均＜1.00,用于静脉滴注的两性霉素B脂质体 (L-AmB)DUI值为1.04。结论 该院两性霉素B使用合理,在溶媒的选择上还需要提高,以期获得更高的临床效益。     

介入联合手术治疗膀胱癌32例疗效分析

目的观察髂内动脉灌注化疗联合手术治疗膀胱癌的疗效。方法对32例中晚期膀胱癌先行介入治疗,再手术切除。结果32例膀胱癌完全缓解(CR)率为71．9％。结论介入治疗中晚期膀胱的手术提供了良好基础,对一部分原本行扩大切除术甚至全切的患实行单纯部分切除术,从而保留了膀胱生理功能,有助于提高患生活质量,延长生命。     

Epistaxis

Epistaxis is a common problem that can affect the whole population. The majority of cases are self-limiting and do not require any medical intervention, but epistaxis can be associated with morbidity and even death in very rare circumstances. If epistaxis does not resolve with first aid measures, or episodes are frequent, patients may require specialist assessment and treatment by ENT, either in the outpatient clinic or via an unscheduled (emergency) admission to the hospital. Here, we provide an overview of the management of epistaxis in the outpatient setting and during an emergency admission in both paediatric and adult patients. We highlight the key considerations in the history and management, covering the common and rare conditions that are associated with epistaxis. This article provides an update from our previous article published in 2018 to include the more recent literature and a useful learning resource for examinations.     

Clinical manifestations and outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 in heart transplant recipients: a multicentre case series with a systematic review and meta-analysis

Available data on clinical presentation and mortality of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in heart transplant (HT) recipients remain limited. We report a case series of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in 39 HT recipients from 3 French heart transplant centres (mean age 54.4 ± 14.8 years; 66.7% males). Hospital admission was required for 35 (89.7%) cases including 14/39 (35.9%) cases being admitted in intensive care unit. Immunosuppressive medications were reduced or discontinued in 74.4% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 54 (19–80) days, death and death or need for mechanical ventilation occurred in 25.6% and 33.3% of patients, respectively. Elevated C-reactive protein and lung involvement ≥50% on chest computed tomography (CT) at admission were associated with an increased risk of death or need for mechanical ventilation. Mortality rate from March to June in the entire 3-centre HT recipient cohort was 56% higher in 2020 compared to the time-matched 2019 cohort (2% vs. 1.28%, P = 0.15). In a meta-analysis including 4 studies, pre-existing diabetes mellitus (OR 3.60, 95% CI 1.43–9.06, I² = 0%, P = 0.006) and chronic kidney disease stage III or higher (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.39–10.31, I² = 0%, P = 0.009) were associated with increased mortality. These findings highlight the aggressive clinical course of COVID-19 in HT recipients.