Michael R. Kolber

Iron replacement therapy in inflammatory bowel disease patients with iron deficiency anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common problem in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and has a significant negative impact on quality of life. The aim was to compare the clinical efficacy of intravenous (IV) versus oral (PO) iron replacement in adult IBD with iron deficiency anemia (IDA). METHODS A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of IV versus PO iron therapy in the treatment of IDA in adult IBD patients. The primary outcome was the mean change in the hemoglobin at the end of study and secondary outcomes include mean change in ferritin, clinical disease activity index, quality of life score and the adverse reaction rate. RESULTS The search strategy identified 757 articles while only three industry-funded articles met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and meta-analysis. The total sample size was 333 patients with 203 patients receiving IV therapy. IV route was associated with a 6.8 g/L higher mean hemoglobin increment and 110 μg/L higher mean ferritin increment. The IBD activity index and Quality of Life scores were comparable between the two treatment groups. More adverse events were reported in the oral treatment group with the odds for discontinuation being 6.2 (CI 2.2, 17.1). CONCLUSIONS Intravenous iron treatment is better tolerated and more effective than oral iron treatment in improving ferritin. The higher hemoglobin gain with the IV route was small and of uncertain clinical significance. The combined sample size of the included studies was small and further clinical trials are required.

Agreement among Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculators

Background— Use of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is often recommended by guidelines, but research on consistency in risk assessment among calculators is limited. Method and Results— A search of PubMed and Google was performed. Five clinicians selected 25 calculators by independent review. Hypothetical patients were created with the use of 7 risk factors (age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus) dichotomized to high and low, generating 27 patients (128 total). These patients were assessed by each calculator by 2 clinicians. Risk estimates (and assigned risk categories) were compared among calculators. Selected calculators were from 8 countries, used 5- or 10-year predictions, and estimated either cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease. With the use of 3 risk categories (low, medium, and high), the 25 calculators categorized each patient into a mean of 2.2 different categories, and 41% of unique patients were assigned across all 3 risk categories. Risk category agreement between pairs of calculators was 67%. This did not improve when analysis was limited to just the 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators. In nondiabetics, the highest calculated risk estimate from a calculator averaged 4.9 times higher (range, 1.9–13.3) than the lowest calculated risk estimate for the same patient. This did not change meaningfully for diabetics or when the analysis was limited to 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators. Conclusions— The decision as to which calculator to use for risk estimation has an important impact on both risk categorization and absolute risk estimates. This has broad implications for guidelines recommending therapies based on specific calculators.

Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study

Objective To determine the quality of health recommendations and claims made on popular medical talk shows. Design Prospective observational study. Setting Mainstream television media. Sources Internationally syndicated medical television talk shows that air daily (The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors). Interventions Investigators randomly selected 40 episodes of each of The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors from early 2013 and identified and evaluated all recommendations made on each program. A group of experienced evidence reviewers independently searched for, and evaluated as a team, evidence to support 80 randomly selected recommendations from each show. Main outcomes measures Percentage of recommendations that are supported by evidence as determined by a team of experienced evidence reviewers. Secondary outcomes included topics discussed, the number of recommendations made on the shows, and the types and details of recommendations that were made. Results We could find at least a case study or better evidence to support 54% (95% confidence interval 47% to 62%) of the 160 recommendations (80 from each show). For recommendations in The Dr Oz Show, evidence supported 46%, contradicted 15%, and was not found for 39%. For recommendations in The Doctors, evidence supported 63%, contradicted 14%, and was not found for 24%. Believable or somewhat believable evidence supported 33% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 53% on The Doctors. On average, The Dr Oz Show had 12 recommendations per episode and The Doctors 11. The most common recommendation category on The Dr Oz Show was dietary advice (39%) and on The Doctors was to consult a healthcare provider (18%). A specific benefit was described for 43% and 41% of the recommendations made on the shows respectively. The magnitude of benefit was described for 17% of the recommendations on The Dr Oz Show and 11% on The Doctors. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest accompanied 0.4% of recommendations. Conclusions Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows. Additional details of methods used and changes made to study protocol

Randomized Trial of the Effect of Pharmacist Prescribing on Improving Blood Pressure in the Community The Alberta Clinical Trial in Optimizing Hypertension (RxACTION)

Background— Hypertension control rates remain suboptimal. Pharmacists’ scope of practice is evolving, and their position in the community may be ideal for improving hypertension care. We aimed to study the impact of pharmacist prescribing on blood pressure (BP) control in community-dwelling patients. Methods and Results— We designed a patient-level, randomized, controlled trial, enrolling adults with above-target BP (as defined by Canadian guidelines) through community pharmacies, hospitals, or primary care teams in 23 communities in Alberta. Intervention group patients received an assessment of BP and cardiovascular risk, education on hypertension, prescribing of antihypertensive medications, laboratory monitoring, and monthly follow-up visits for 6 months (all by their pharmacist). Control group patients received a wallet card for BP recording, written hypertension information, and usual care from their pharmacist and physician. Primary outcome was the change in systolic BP at 6 months. A total of 248 patients (mean age, 64 years; 49% male) were enrolled. Baseline mean±SD systolic/diastolic BP was 150±14/84±11 mm Hg. The intervention group had a mean±SE reduction in systolic BP at 6 months of 18.3±1.2 compared with 11.8±1.9 mm Hg in the control group, an adjusted difference of 6.6±1.9 mm Hg (P=0.0006). The adjusted odds of patients achieving BP targets was 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.17–4.15 in favor of the intervention). Conclusions— Pharmacist prescribing for patients with hypertension resulted in a clinically important and statistically significant reduction in BP. Policy makers should consider an expanded role for pharmacists, including prescribing, to address the burden of hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00878566.

Improving hypertension management through pharmacist prescribing; the rural alberta clinical trial in optimizing hypertension (Rural RxACTION): trial design and methods

BackgroundPatients with hypertension continue to have less than optimal blood pressure control, with nearly one in five Canadian adults having hypertension. Pharmacist prescribing is gaining favor as a potential clinically efficacious and cost-effective means to improve both access and quality of care. With Alberta being the first province in Canada to have independent prescribing by pharmacists, it offers a unique opportunity to evaluate outcomes in patients who are prescribed antihypertensive therapy by pharmacists.MethodsThe study is a randomized controlled trial of enhanced pharmacist care, with the unit of randomization being the patient. Participants will be randomized to enhanced pharmacist care (patient identification, assessment, education, close follow-up, and prescribing/titration of antihypertensive medications) or usual care. Participants are patients in rural Alberta with undiagnosed/uncontrolled blood pressure, as defined by the Canadian Hypertension Education Program. The primary outcome is the change in systolic blood pressure between baseline and 24 weeks in the enhanced-care versus usual-care arms. There are also three substudies running in conjunction with the project examining different remuneration models, investigating patient knowledge, and assessing health-resource utilization amongst patients in each group.DiscussionTo date, one-third of the required sample size has been recruited. There are 15 communities and 17 pharmacists actively screening, recruiting, and following patients. This study will provide high-level evidence regarding pharmacist prescribing.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00878566.

An aspirin a day? Aspirin use across a spectrum of risk: cardiovascular disease, cancers and bleeds

Aspirin or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is commonly used in the general population for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Strong evidence supports the use of ASA in secondary prevention of CVD; however, for primary prevention, potential benefits are offset by potential harms (primarily major bleeds), with no benefit in overall mortality. Anti-platelet agents, including ASA, are one of the most commonly implicated medications for hospital admissions related to adverse medication events. Studies of primary prevention in patients with risk factors for CVD also fail to show a benefit with ASA. Finally, evidence supporting ASA use for cancer prevention is limited. Health care providers should be aware of the benefits and risks associated with ASA use in primary and secondary prevention and discuss these with their patients in the context of individual patient values and preferences.

Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians sepsis treatment checklist: optimizing sepsis care in Canadian emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) sepsis guidelines created by the CAEP Critical Care Practice Committee (C4) and published in the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) form the most definitive publication on Canadian emergency department (ED) sepsis care to date. Our intention was to identify which of the care items in this document are specifically necessary in the ED and then to provide these items in a tiered checklist that can be used by any Canadian ED practitioner. METHODS Practice points from the CJEM sepsis publication were identified to create a practice point list. Members of C4 then used a Delphi technique consensus process over May to October 2009 via e-mail to create a tiered checklist of sepsis care items that can or could be completed in a Canadian ED when caring for the septic shock patient. This checklist was then assessed for use by a survey of ED practitioners from varying backgrounds (rural ED, community ED, tertiary ED) from July to October 2010. RESULTS Twenty sepsis care items were identified in the CAEP sepsis guidelines. Fifteen items were felt to be necessary for ED care. Two levels of checklists were then created that can be used in a Canadian ED. Most ED physicians in community and tertiary care centres could complete all parts of the level I sepsis checklist. Rural centres often struggle with the ability to obtain lactate values and central venous access. Many items of the level II sepsis checklist could not be completed outside the tertiary care centre ED. CONCLUSION Sepsis care continues to be an integral and major part of the ED domain. Practice points for sepsis care that require specialized monitoring and invasive techniques are often limited to larger tertiary care EDs and, although heavily emphasized by many medical bodies, cannot be reasonably expected in all centres. When the resources of a centre limit patient care, transfer may be required.

Prospective Study of the Quality of Colonoscopies Performed by Primary Care Physicians: The Alberta Primary Care Endoscopy (APC-Endo) Study.

Background The quality of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians (PCPs) is unknown. Objective To determine whether PCP colonoscopists achieve colonoscopy quality benchmarks, and patient satisfaction with having their colonoscopy performed by a primary care physician. Design Prospective multi-center, multi-physician observational study. Colonoscopic quality data collection occurred via completion of case report forms and pathological confirmation of lesions. Patient satisfaction was captured by a telephone survey. Setting Thirteen rural and suburban hospitals in Alberta, Canada. Measurements Proportion of successful cecal intubations, average number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, proportion of patients with at least one adenoma, and serious adverse event rates; patient satisfaction with their wait time and procedure, as well as willingness to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care endoscopist. Results In the two-month study period, 10 study physicians performed 577 colonoscopies. The overall adjusted proportion of successful cecal intubations was 96.5% (95% CI 94.6–97.8), and all physicians achieved the adjusted cecal intubation target of ≥90%. The average number of ademonas detected per colonoscopy was 0.62 (95% CI 0.5–0.74). 46.4% (95% CI 38.5–54.3) of males and 30.2% (95% CI 22.3–38.2) of females ≥50 years of age having their first colonoscopy, had at least one adenoma. Four serious adverse events occurred (three post polypectomy bleeds and one perforation) and 99.3% of patients were willing to have a repeat colonoscopy performed by their primary care colonoscopist. Limitations Two-month study length and non-universal participation by Alberta primary care endoscopists. Conclusions Primary care physician colonoscopists can achieve quality benchmarks in colonoscopy. Training additional primary care physicians in endoscopy may improve patient access and decrease endoscopic wait times, especially in rural settings.

Seasonality of Ankle Swelling: Population Symptom Reporting Using Google Trends

In our experience, complaints of ankle swelling are more common in summer, typically from patients with no obvious cardiovascular disease. Surprisingly, this observation has never been reported. To objectively establish this phenomenon, we sought evidence of seasonality in the public’s Internet searches for ankle swelling. Our data, obtained from Google Trends, consisted of all related Google searches in the United States from January 4, 2004, to January 26, 2016. Consistent with our expectations and confirmed by similar data for Australia, Internet searches for information on ankle swelling are highly seasonal (highest in midsummer), with seasonality explaining 86% of search volume variability.

Conservative management of laryngeal perforation in a rural setting: case report and review of the literature on penetrating neck injuries.

Penetrating neck injuries (PNIs) are infrequent but can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Although surgical management of unstable patients with penetrating neck trauma is the standard of care, management of stable patients remains controversial owing to the possibility of occult injuries. Recent studies suggest that physical examination and ancillary imaging may be sufficiently accurate to diagnose or rule out surgically significant injuries in PNI. We report a patient with a laryngeal perforation who was managed conservatively in a rural hospital without complications and review the literature pertinent to cases of this nature.