Inconsistencies Between Actual and Estimated Blood Alcohol Concentrations in a Field Study of College Students: Do Students Really Know How Much They Drink?

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use by college students is commonly measured through the use of surveys. The validity of such data hinge on the assumption that students are aware of how much alcohol they actually consume. Recent studies call this assumption into question. Students tend to overestimate the appropriate sizes of standard drinks, suggesting that they might underestimate how much alcohol they consume. If this is true, then students' actual blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) should be higher than BACs estimated based on self-report data. The present study examined this issue METHODS: Breathalyzer readings and self-reported drinking data were collected from 152 college students during the fall of 2004. Estimated BACs were calculated by means of a standard formula, and the relation between actual and estimated BACs was examined. Factors contributing to discrepancies between the two values were identified RESULTS: Estimated BAC levels were significantly higher, not lower, than breath BAC measures. The accuracy of estimated BACs decreased as the number of drinks and amount of time spent drinking increased. Being male and drinking only beer predicted greater accuracy of estimated BACs CONCLUSIONS: Although laboratory data suggest that students underestimate how much they drink, the hypothesis was not supported by data collected in the field. It appears that students might actually overestimate rather than underestimate their levels of consumption when surveyed in the midst of a night of drinking. The findings corroborate observations made by other researchers and suggest that the findings of laboratory studies on college drinking do not necessarily extend to real-world settings.     

Designing a Primary Care–Based Deprescribing Intervention for Patients with Dementia and Multiple Chronic Conditions: a Qualitative Study

BackgroundPatients with dementia and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) frequently experience polypharmacy, increasing their risk of adverse drug events.ObjectivesTo elucidate patient, family, and physician perspectives on medication discontinuation and recommended language for deprescribing discussions in order to inform an intervention to increase awareness of deprescribing among individuals with dementia and MCC, family caregivers and primary care physicians. We also explored participant views on culturally competent approaches to deprescribing.DesignQualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with patients, caregivers, and physicians.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 65 years with claims-based diagnosis of dementia, ≥ 1 additional chronic condition, and ≥ 5 chronic medications were recruited from an integrated delivery system in Colorado and an academic medical center in Maryland. We included caregivers when present or if patients were unable to participate due to severe cognitive impairment. Physicians were recruited within the same systems and through snowball sampling, targeting areas with large African American and Hispanic populations.ApproachWe used constant comparison to identify and compare themes between patients, caregivers, and physicians.Key ResultsWe conducted interviews with 17 patients, 16 caregivers, and 16 physicians. All groups said it was important to earn trust before deprescribing, frame deprescribing as routine and positive, align deprescribing with goals of dementia care, and respect caregivers’ expertise. As in other areas of medicine, racial, ethnic, and language concordance was important to patients and caregivers from minority cultural backgrounds. Participants favored direct-to-patient educational materials, support from pharmacists and other team members, and close follow-up during deprescribing. Patients and caregivers favored language that explained deprescribing in terms of altered physiology with aging. Physicians desired communication tips addressing specific clinical situations.ConclusionsCulturally sensitive communication within a trusted patient-physician relationship supplemented by pharmacists, and language tailored to specific clinical situations may support deprescribing in primary care for patients with dementia and MCC.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06063-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.KEY WORDS: deprescribing, patient-physician communication, dementia     

Safety and tolerability of linaclotide for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: pooled Phase 3 analysis

Background: Linaclotide is approved for treating irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C; 290 µg QD) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC; 145 µg or 72 µg QD). These analyses aimed to assess linaclotide safety in a large, pooled Phase 3 population.

Methods: In six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patients received linaclotide (72 µg, 145 µg, 290 µg) or placebo daily for 12–26 weeks; in two long-term safety (LTS) studies, patients received open-label linaclotide for ≤78 additional weeks. Laboratory values, vital signs, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

Results: Overall, 3853 patients received ≥1 dose of linaclotide. The most common TEAE was diarrhea (majority [90.5% in RCTs] mild/moderate). Linaclotide patients experienced 1.1 diarrhea TEAE per patient-year in the RCTs (0.2 in placebo), and 0.3 in the LTS studies. In RCTs, 6.9% linaclotide and 3.0% placebo patients discontinued due to any adverse event (AE); 4.0% linaclotide and 0.3% placebo patients discontinued due to diarrhea. In LTS studies, 9.4% patients discontinued due to any AE, and 3.8% due to diarrhea. Serious AEs (SAEs) were rare and similar across treatment groups; there were no SAEs of diarrhea.

Conclusion: These pooled analyses of patients treated for ≤104 weeks confirm linaclotide’s overall safety.     

Familial leucine-sensitive hypoglycemia of infancy due to a dominant mutation of the beta-cell sulfonylurea receptor

Familial leucine-sensitive hypoglycemia of infancy was described in 1956 as a condition in which symptomatic hypoglycemia was provoked by protein meals or the amino acid, leucine. The purpose of this study was to determine the genetic basis for hypoglycemia in a family diagnosed with leucine-sensitive hypoglycemia in 1960. Recently diagnosed family members showed a dominantly transmitted pattern of diazoxide-responsive hyperinsulinism (HI). However, they did not fit the characteristics of HI caused by glutamate dehydrogenase gene mutations, previously felt to explain leucine-sensitive hypoglycemia. Islet function was examined using acute insulin response (AIR) tests to calcium, leucine, glucose, and tolbutamide as well as oral protein tolerance tests. Five of five affected family members showed an abnormal positive calcium AIR, and two of five showed a positive leucine AIR. Protein-induced hypoglycemia was demonstrated in five of six affected subjects. Mutation analysis of four known HI genes (sulfonylurea receptor 1, Kir6.2, glutamate dehydrogenase, and glucokinase) in family members identified an R1353H missense mutation in exon 33 of SUR1. (86)Rb(+) efflux and electrophysiological studies of R1353H SUR1 coexpressed with wild-type Kir6.2 in COSm6 cells demonstrated partially impaired ATP-dependent potassium channel function. Leucine-sensitive hypoglycemia in this family was found to result from a dominantly expressed SUR1 mutation.     

Findings on optical colonoscopy after positive CT colonography exam

BACKGROUND & AIMS:  The aim of this study is to evaluate the findings on optical colonoscopy (OC) after a positive CT colonography (CTC) exam and characterize the type of polyps seen on OC but not reported by CTC.
METHODS:  Over an 18-month period a total of 159 asymptomatic adults had polyps seen on computed tomography colonography examination and subsequently underwent planned therapeutic optical colonoscopy. The colonoscopists were aware of the findings on CT colonography prior to further evaluation of the colon. Characteristics of polyps and adenomas seen on subsequent optical colonoscopy but not seen or reported on CT colonography were examined.
RESULTS:  The adenoma miss rate for CT colonography overall was 18.9% (25/132) including 6.2% (4/65) for polyps >9 mm and 18.2% (8/44) for polyps 6–9 mm. Three of the adenomas >9 mm not seen on CTC were sessile, and two were found in patients with technically difficult CT colonography studies due to poor colonic distention. No adenomas with advanced pathology <6 mm were found on optical colonoscopy but not reported on CT colonography. False-positive CTC referral where no polyp was seen on colonoscopy was 5.0%.
CONCLUSIONS:  CT colonography has adenoma miss rates similar to miss rates historically found with optical colonoscopy, with most missed adenomas being <10 mm and sessile in shape.