Emergency Medicine

Acute agitation in the pregnant patient should be treated as an obstetric emergency, as it jeopardizes the safety of the patient and fetus, as well as others in the emergency room. Uncontrolled agitation is associated with obstetric complications such as preterm delivery, placental abnormalities, postnatal death, and spontaneous abortion.¹

Current data on the reproductive safety of drugs commonly used to treat acute agitation—benzodiazepines, typical (first-generation) antipsychotics, atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics, and diphenhydramine—suggest no increase in risk beyond the 2% to 3% risk of congenital malformations in the general population when used in the first trimester.^2,3

FOCUS OF THE EMERGENCY EVALUATION

Agitation is defined as the physical manifestation of internal distress, due to an underlying medical condition such as delirium or to a psychiatric condition such as acute intoxication or withdrawal, psychosis, mania, or personality disorder.⁴

For the agitated pregnant woman who is not belligerent at presentation, triage should start with a basic assessment of airways, breathing, and circulation, as well as vital signs and glucose level.⁵ A thorough medical history and a description of events leading to the presentation, obtained from the patient or the patient’s family or friends, are vital for narrowing the diagnosis and deciding treatment.

The initial evaluation should include consideration of delirium, trauma, intracranial hemorrhage, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, amniotic and venous thromboembolism, hypoxia and hypercapnia, and signs and symptoms of intoxication or withdrawal from substances such as alcohol, cocaine, phencyclidine, methamphetamine, and substituted cathinones (“bath salts”). From 20 weeks of gestation to 6 weeks postpartum, eclampsia should also be considered in the differential diagnosis.¹ Ruling out these conditions is important since the management of each differs vastly from the protocol for agitation secondary to psychosis, mania, or delirium.

NEW SYSTEM TO DETERMINE RISK DURING PREGNANCY, LACTATION

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has discontinued its pregnancy category labeling system that used the letters A, B, C, D, and X to convey reproductive and lactation safety. The new system, established under the FDA Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule,⁶ provides descriptive, up-to-date explanations of risk, as well as previously absent context regarding baseline risk for major malformations in the general population to help with informed decision-making.⁷ This allows the healthcare provider to interpret the risk for an individual patient.

FIRST-GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS SAFE, EFFECTIVE IN PREGNANCY

Reproductive safety of first-generation (ie, typical) neuroleptics such as haloperidol is supported by extensive data accumulated over the past 50 years.^2,3,8 No significant teratogenic effect has been documented with this drug class,⁷ although a 1996 meta-analysis found a small increase in the relative risk of congenital malformations in offspring exposed to low-potency antipsychotics compared with those exposed to high-potency antipsychotics.²

In general, mid- and high-potency antipsychotics (eg, haloperidol, perphenazine) are often recommended because they are less likely to have associated sedative or hypotensive effects than low-potency antipsychotics (eg, chlorpromazine, perphenazine), which may be a significant consideration for a pregnant patient.^2,8

There is a theoretical risk of neonatal extrapyramidal symptoms with exposure to first-generation antipsychotics in the third trimester, but the data to support this are from sparse case reports and small observational cohorts.⁹

NEWER ANTIPSYCHOTICS ALSO SAFE IN PREGNANCY

Newer antipsychotics such as the second-generation antipsychotics, available since the mid-1990s, are increasingly used as primary or adjunctive therapy across a wide range of psychiatric disorders.¹⁰ Recent data from large, prospective cohort studies investigating reproductive safety of these agents are reassuring, with no specific patterns of organ malformation.^11,12

DIPHENHYDRAMINE

Recent studies of antihistamines such as diphenhydramine have not reported any risk of major malformations with first-trimester exposure to antihistamines.^13,14 Dose-dependent anticholinergic adverse effects of antihistamines can induce or exacerbate delirium and agitation, although these effects are classically seen in elderly, nonpregnant patients.¹⁵ Thus, given the paucity of adverse effects and the low risk, diphenhydramine is considered safe to use in pregnancy.¹³

Benzodiazepines are not contraindicated for the treatment of acute agitation in pregnancy.¹⁶ Reproductive safety data from meta-analyses and large population-based cohort studies have found no evidence of increased risk of major malformations in neonates born to mothers on prescription benzodiazepines in the first trimester.^17,18 While third-trimester exposure to benzodiazepines has been associated with “floppy-baby” syndrome and neonatal withdrawal syndrome,¹⁶ these are more likely to occur in women on long-term prescription benzodiazepine therapy. No study has yet assessed the risk of these outcomes with a 1-time acute exposure in the emergency department; however, the risk is likely minimal given the aforementioned data observed in women on long-term prescription benzodiazepine therapy.

STEPWISE MANAGEMENT OF AGITATION IN PREGNANCY

If untreated, agitation in pregnancy is independently associated with outcomes that include premature delivery, low birth weight, growth retardation, postnatal death, and spontaneous abortion.¹ The risk of these outcomes greatly outweighs any potential risk from psychotropic medications during pregnancy.

Nevertheless, intervention should progress in a stepwise manner, starting with the least restrictive and progressing toward more restrictive interventions, including pharmacotherapy, use of a seclusion room, and physical restraints (Figure 1).^4,19

Before medications are considered, attempts should be made to engage with and “de-escalate” the patient in a safe, nonstimulating environment.¹⁹ If this approach is not effective, the patient should be offered oral medications to help with her agitation. However, if the patient’s behavior continues to escalate, presenting a danger to herself or staff, the use of emergency medications is clearly indicated. Providers should succinctly inform the patient of the need for immediate intervention.

If the patient has had a good response in the past to one of these medications or is currently taking one as needed, the same medication should be offered. If the patient has never been treated for agitation, it is important to consider the presenting symptoms, differential diagnosis, and the route and rapidity of administration of medication. If the patient has experienced a fall or other trauma, confirming a viable fetal heart rate between 10 to 22 weeks of gestation with Doppler ultrasonography and obstetric consultation should be considered.

DRUG THERAPY RECOMMENDATIONS

Mild to moderate agitation in pregnancy should be managed conservatively with diphenhydramine. Other options include a benzodiazepine, particularly lorazepam, if alcohol withdrawal is suspected. A second-generation antipsychotic such as olanzapine in a rapidly dissolving form or ziprasidone is another option if a rapid response is required.²⁰Table 1 provides a summary of pharmacotherapy recommendations.

Severe agitation may require a combination of agents. A commonly used, safe regimen—colloquially called the “B52 bomb”—is haloperidol 5 mg, lorazepam 2 mg, and diphenhydramine 25 to 50 mg for prophylaxis of dystonia.²⁰

The patient’s response should be monitored closely, as dosing may require modification as a result of pregnancy-related changes in drug distribution, metabolism, and clearance.²¹

Although no study to our knowledge has assessed risk associated with 1-time exposure to any of these classes of medications in pregnant women, the aforementioned data on long-term exposure provide reassurance that single exposure in emergency departments likely has little or no effect for the developing fetus.

PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR AGITATION IN PREGNANCY

Physical restraints along with emergency medications (ie, chemical restraint) may be indicated when the patient poses a danger to herself or others. In some cases, both types of restraint may be required, whether in the emergency room or an inpatient setting.

However, during the second and third trimesters, physical restraints such as 4-point restraints may predispose the patient to inferior vena cava compression syndrome and compromise placental blood flow.⁴ Therefore, pregnant patients after 20 weeks of gestation should be positioned in the left lateral decubitus position, with the right hip positioned 10 to 12 cm off the bed with pillows or blankets. And when restraints are used in pregnant patients, frequent checking of vital signs and physical assessment is needed to mitigate risks.⁴

Acute agitation in the pregnant patient should be treated as an obstetric emergency, as it jeopardizes the safety of the patient and fetus, as well as others in the emergency room. Uncontrolled agitation is associated with obstetric complications such as preterm delivery, placental abnormalities, postnatal death, and spontaneous abortion.¹

Current data on the reproductive safety of drugs commonly used to treat acute agitation—benzodiazepines, typical (first-generation) antipsychotics, atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics, and diphenhydramine—suggest no increase in risk beyond the 2% to 3% risk of congenital malformations in the general population when used in the first trimester.^2,3

FOCUS OF THE EMERGENCY EVALUATION

Agitation is defined as the physical manifestation of internal distress, due to an underlying medical condition such as delirium or to a psychiatric condition such as acute intoxication or withdrawal, psychosis, mania, or personality disorder.⁴

For the agitated pregnant woman who is not belligerent at presentation, triage should start with a basic assessment of airways, breathing, and circulation, as well as vital signs and glucose level.⁵ A thorough medical history and a description of events leading to the presentation, obtained from the patient or the patient’s family or friends, are vital for narrowing the diagnosis and deciding treatment.

The initial evaluation should include consideration of delirium, trauma, intracranial hemorrhage, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, amniotic and venous thromboembolism, hypoxia and hypercapnia, and signs and symptoms of intoxication or withdrawal from substances such as alcohol, cocaine, phencyclidine, methamphetamine, and substituted cathinones (“bath salts”). From 20 weeks of gestation to 6 weeks postpartum, eclampsia should also be considered in the differential diagnosis.¹ Ruling out these conditions is important since the management of each differs vastly from the protocol for agitation secondary to psychosis, mania, or delirium.

NEW SYSTEM TO DETERMINE RISK DURING PREGNANCY, LACTATION

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has discontinued its pregnancy category labeling system that used the letters A, B, C, D, and X to convey reproductive and lactation safety. The new system, established under the FDA Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule,⁶ provides descriptive, up-to-date explanations of risk, as well as previously absent context regarding baseline risk for major malformations in the general population to help with informed decision-making.⁷ This allows the healthcare provider to interpret the risk for an individual patient.

FIRST-GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS SAFE, EFFECTIVE IN PREGNANCY

Reproductive safety of first-generation (ie, typical) neuroleptics such as haloperidol is supported by extensive data accumulated over the past 50 years.^2,3,8 No significant teratogenic effect has been documented with this drug class,⁷ although a 1996 meta-analysis found a small increase in the relative risk of congenital malformations in offspring exposed to low-potency antipsychotics compared with those exposed to high-potency antipsychotics.²

In general, mid- and high-potency antipsychotics (eg, haloperidol, perphenazine) are often recommended because they are less likely to have associated sedative or hypotensive effects than low-potency antipsychotics (eg, chlorpromazine, perphenazine), which may be a significant consideration for a pregnant patient.^2,8

There is a theoretical risk of neonatal extrapyramidal symptoms with exposure to first-generation antipsychotics in the third trimester, but the data to support this are from sparse case reports and small observational cohorts.⁹

NEWER ANTIPSYCHOTICS ALSO SAFE IN PREGNANCY

Newer antipsychotics such as the second-generation antipsychotics, available since the mid-1990s, are increasingly used as primary or adjunctive therapy across a wide range of psychiatric disorders.¹⁰ Recent data from large, prospective cohort studies investigating reproductive safety of these agents are reassuring, with no specific patterns of organ malformation.^11,12

DIPHENHYDRAMINE

Recent studies of antihistamines such as diphenhydramine have not reported any risk of major malformations with first-trimester exposure to antihistamines.^13,14 Dose-dependent anticholinergic adverse effects of antihistamines can induce or exacerbate delirium and agitation, although these effects are classically seen in elderly, nonpregnant patients.¹⁵ Thus, given the paucity of adverse effects and the low risk, diphenhydramine is considered safe to use in pregnancy.¹³

Benzodiazepines are not contraindicated for the treatment of acute agitation in pregnancy.¹⁶ Reproductive safety data from meta-analyses and large population-based cohort studies have found no evidence of increased risk of major malformations in neonates born to mothers on prescription benzodiazepines in the first trimester.^17,18 While third-trimester exposure to benzodiazepines has been associated with “floppy-baby” syndrome and neonatal withdrawal syndrome,¹⁶ these are more likely to occur in women on long-term prescription benzodiazepine therapy. No study has yet assessed the risk of these outcomes with a 1-time acute exposure in the emergency department; however, the risk is likely minimal given the aforementioned data observed in women on long-term prescription benzodiazepine therapy.

STEPWISE MANAGEMENT OF AGITATION IN PREGNANCY

If untreated, agitation in pregnancy is independently associated with outcomes that include premature delivery, low birth weight, growth retardation, postnatal death, and spontaneous abortion.¹ The risk of these outcomes greatly outweighs any potential risk from psychotropic medications during pregnancy.

Nevertheless, intervention should progress in a stepwise manner, starting with the least restrictive and progressing toward more restrictive interventions, including pharmacotherapy, use of a seclusion room, and physical restraints (Figure 1).^4,19

Before medications are considered, attempts should be made to engage with and “de-escalate” the patient in a safe, nonstimulating environment.¹⁹ If this approach is not effective, the patient should be offered oral medications to help with her agitation. However, if the patient’s behavior continues to escalate, presenting a danger to herself or staff, the use of emergency medications is clearly indicated. Providers should succinctly inform the patient of the need for immediate intervention.

If the patient has had a good response in the past to one of these medications or is currently taking one as needed, the same medication should be offered. If the patient has never been treated for agitation, it is important to consider the presenting symptoms, differential diagnosis, and the route and rapidity of administration of medication. If the patient has experienced a fall or other trauma, confirming a viable fetal heart rate between 10 to 22 weeks of gestation with Doppler ultrasonography and obstetric consultation should be considered.

DRUG THERAPY RECOMMENDATIONS

Mild to moderate agitation in pregnancy should be managed conservatively with diphenhydramine. Other options include a benzodiazepine, particularly lorazepam, if alcohol withdrawal is suspected. A second-generation antipsychotic such as olanzapine in a rapidly dissolving form or ziprasidone is another option if a rapid response is required.²⁰Table 1 provides a summary of pharmacotherapy recommendations.

Severe agitation may require a combination of agents. A commonly used, safe regimen—colloquially called the “B52 bomb”—is haloperidol 5 mg, lorazepam 2 mg, and diphenhydramine 25 to 50 mg for prophylaxis of dystonia.²⁰

The patient’s response should be monitored closely, as dosing may require modification as a result of pregnancy-related changes in drug distribution, metabolism, and clearance.²¹

Although no study to our knowledge has assessed risk associated with 1-time exposure to any of these classes of medications in pregnant women, the aforementioned data on long-term exposure provide reassurance that single exposure in emergency departments likely has little or no effect for the developing fetus.

PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR AGITATION IN PREGNANCY

Physical restraints along with emergency medications (ie, chemical restraint) may be indicated when the patient poses a danger to herself or others. In some cases, both types of restraint may be required, whether in the emergency room or an inpatient setting.

However, during the second and third trimesters, physical restraints such as 4-point restraints may predispose the patient to inferior vena cava compression syndrome and compromise placental blood flow.⁴ Therefore, pregnant patients after 20 weeks of gestation should be positioned in the left lateral decubitus position, with the right hip positioned 10 to 12 cm off the bed with pillows or blankets. And when restraints are used in pregnant patients, frequent checking of vital signs and physical assessment is needed to mitigate risks.⁴

Acute agitation in the pregnant patient should be treated as an obstetric emergency, as it jeopardizes the safety of the patient and fetus, as well as others in the emergency room. Uncontrolled agitation is associated with obstetric complications such as preterm delivery, placental abnormalities, postnatal death, and spontaneous abortion.¹

Current data on the reproductive safety of drugs commonly used to treat acute agitation—benzodiazepines, typical (first-generation) antipsychotics, atypical (second-generation) antipsychotics, and diphenhydramine—suggest no increase in risk beyond the 2% to 3% risk of congenital malformations in the general population when used in the first trimester.^2,3

FOCUS OF THE EMERGENCY EVALUATION

Agitation is defined as the physical manifestation of internal distress, due to an underlying medical condition such as delirium or to a psychiatric condition such as acute intoxication or withdrawal, psychosis, mania, or personality disorder.⁴

For the agitated pregnant woman who is not belligerent at presentation, triage should start with a basic assessment of airways, breathing, and circulation, as well as vital signs and glucose level.⁵ A thorough medical history and a description of events leading to the presentation, obtained from the patient or the patient’s family or friends, are vital for narrowing the diagnosis and deciding treatment.

The initial evaluation should include consideration of delirium, trauma, intracranial hemorrhage, coagulopathy, thrombocytopenia, amniotic and venous thromboembolism, hypoxia and hypercapnia, and signs and symptoms of intoxication or withdrawal from substances such as alcohol, cocaine, phencyclidine, methamphetamine, and substituted cathinones (“bath salts”). From 20 weeks of gestation to 6 weeks postpartum, eclampsia should also be considered in the differential diagnosis.¹ Ruling out these conditions is important since the management of each differs vastly from the protocol for agitation secondary to psychosis, mania, or delirium.

NEW SYSTEM TO DETERMINE RISK DURING PREGNANCY, LACTATION

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has discontinued its pregnancy category labeling system that used the letters A, B, C, D, and X to convey reproductive and lactation safety. The new system, established under the FDA Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule,⁶ provides descriptive, up-to-date explanations of risk, as well as previously absent context regarding baseline risk for major malformations in the general population to help with informed decision-making.⁷ This allows the healthcare provider to interpret the risk for an individual patient.

FIRST-GENERATION ANTIPSYCHOTICS SAFE, EFFECTIVE IN PREGNANCY

Reproductive safety of first-generation (ie, typical) neuroleptics such as haloperidol is supported by extensive data accumulated over the past 50 years.^2,3,8 No significant teratogenic effect has been documented with this drug class,⁷ although a 1996 meta-analysis found a small increase in the relative risk of congenital malformations in offspring exposed to low-potency antipsychotics compared with those exposed to high-potency antipsychotics.²

In general, mid- and high-potency antipsychotics (eg, haloperidol, perphenazine) are often recommended because they are less likely to have associated sedative or hypotensive effects than low-potency antipsychotics (eg, chlorpromazine, perphenazine), which may be a significant consideration for a pregnant patient.^2,8

There is a theoretical risk of neonatal extrapyramidal symptoms with exposure to first-generation antipsychotics in the third trimester, but the data to support this are from sparse case reports and small observational cohorts.⁹

NEWER ANTIPSYCHOTICS ALSO SAFE IN PREGNANCY

Newer antipsychotics such as the second-generation antipsychotics, available since the mid-1990s, are increasingly used as primary or adjunctive therapy across a wide range of psychiatric disorders.¹⁰ Recent data from large, prospective cohort studies investigating reproductive safety of these agents are reassuring, with no specific patterns of organ malformation.^11,12

DIPHENHYDRAMINE

Recent studies of antihistamines such as diphenhydramine have not reported any risk of major malformations with first-trimester exposure to antihistamines.^13,14 Dose-dependent anticholinergic adverse effects of antihistamines can induce or exacerbate delirium and agitation, although these effects are classically seen in elderly, nonpregnant patients.¹⁵ Thus, given the paucity of adverse effects and the low risk, diphenhydramine is considered safe to use in pregnancy.¹³

Benzodiazepines are not contraindicated for the treatment of acute agitation in pregnancy.¹⁶ Reproductive safety data from meta-analyses and large population-based cohort studies have found no evidence of increased risk of major malformations in neonates born to mothers on prescription benzodiazepines in the first trimester.^17,18 While third-trimester exposure to benzodiazepines has been associated with “floppy-baby” syndrome and neonatal withdrawal syndrome,¹⁶ these are more likely to occur in women on long-term prescription benzodiazepine therapy. No study has yet assessed the risk of these outcomes with a 1-time acute exposure in the emergency department; however, the risk is likely minimal given the aforementioned data observed in women on long-term prescription benzodiazepine therapy.

STEPWISE MANAGEMENT OF AGITATION IN PREGNANCY

If untreated, agitation in pregnancy is independently associated with outcomes that include premature delivery, low birth weight, growth retardation, postnatal death, and spontaneous abortion.¹ The risk of these outcomes greatly outweighs any potential risk from psychotropic medications during pregnancy.

Nevertheless, intervention should progress in a stepwise manner, starting with the least restrictive and progressing toward more restrictive interventions, including pharmacotherapy, use of a seclusion room, and physical restraints (Figure 1).^4,19

Before medications are considered, attempts should be made to engage with and “de-escalate” the patient in a safe, nonstimulating environment.¹⁹ If this approach is not effective, the patient should be offered oral medications to help with her agitation. However, if the patient’s behavior continues to escalate, presenting a danger to herself or staff, the use of emergency medications is clearly indicated. Providers should succinctly inform the patient of the need for immediate intervention.

If the patient has had a good response in the past to one of these medications or is currently taking one as needed, the same medication should be offered. If the patient has never been treated for agitation, it is important to consider the presenting symptoms, differential diagnosis, and the route and rapidity of administration of medication. If the patient has experienced a fall or other trauma, confirming a viable fetal heart rate between 10 to 22 weeks of gestation with Doppler ultrasonography and obstetric consultation should be considered.

DRUG THERAPY RECOMMENDATIONS

Mild to moderate agitation in pregnancy should be managed conservatively with diphenhydramine. Other options include a benzodiazepine, particularly lorazepam, if alcohol withdrawal is suspected. A second-generation antipsychotic such as olanzapine in a rapidly dissolving form or ziprasidone is another option if a rapid response is required.²⁰Table 1 provides a summary of pharmacotherapy recommendations.

Severe agitation may require a combination of agents. A commonly used, safe regimen—colloquially called the “B52 bomb”—is haloperidol 5 mg, lorazepam 2 mg, and diphenhydramine 25 to 50 mg for prophylaxis of dystonia.²⁰

The patient’s response should be monitored closely, as dosing may require modification as a result of pregnancy-related changes in drug distribution, metabolism, and clearance.²¹

Although no study to our knowledge has assessed risk associated with 1-time exposure to any of these classes of medications in pregnant women, the aforementioned data on long-term exposure provide reassurance that single exposure in emergency departments likely has little or no effect for the developing fetus.

PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS FOR AGITATION IN PREGNANCY

Physical restraints along with emergency medications (ie, chemical restraint) may be indicated when the patient poses a danger to herself or others. In some cases, both types of restraint may be required, whether in the emergency room or an inpatient setting.

However, during the second and third trimesters, physical restraints such as 4-point restraints may predispose the patient to inferior vena cava compression syndrome and compromise placental blood flow.⁴ Therefore, pregnant patients after 20 weeks of gestation should be positioned in the left lateral decubitus position, with the right hip positioned 10 to 12 cm off the bed with pillows or blankets. And when restraints are used in pregnant patients, frequent checking of vital signs and physical assessment is needed to mitigate risks.⁴

To the Editor: Regarding the article about a man with rapidly progressive pleural effusion by Zoumot et al in the January 2019 issue,¹ there was some inconsistency between the teaching points and the actions taken.

Question 1 asked what was the most likely cause of the patient’s pleuritic chest pain. Pulmonary embolism was an unlikely diagnosis, given the patient’s presentation and his normal D-dimer level, which the text acknowledges, but then proceeds to state that computed tomographic angiography of the chest was done anyway.

After pleural effusion was diagnosed, question 2 asked what was the best management strategy for the patient at that time. The best management strategy was to give oral antibiotics with close follow-up because the patient was at low risk of a poor outcome, but he was advised to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics anyway.

I’m not quite sure of the point of the didactic exercise when actions are not consistent with the analytic rationale for testing and treatment.

To the Editor: Regarding the article about a man with rapidly progressive pleural effusion by Zoumot et al in the January 2019 issue,¹ there was some inconsistency between the teaching points and the actions taken.

Question 1 asked what was the most likely cause of the patient’s pleuritic chest pain. Pulmonary embolism was an unlikely diagnosis, given the patient’s presentation and his normal D-dimer level, which the text acknowledges, but then proceeds to state that computed tomographic angiography of the chest was done anyway.

After pleural effusion was diagnosed, question 2 asked what was the best management strategy for the patient at that time. The best management strategy was to give oral antibiotics with close follow-up because the patient was at low risk of a poor outcome, but he was advised to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics anyway.

I’m not quite sure of the point of the didactic exercise when actions are not consistent with the analytic rationale for testing and treatment.

To the Editor: Regarding the article about a man with rapidly progressive pleural effusion by Zoumot et al in the January 2019 issue,¹ there was some inconsistency between the teaching points and the actions taken.

Question 1 asked what was the most likely cause of the patient’s pleuritic chest pain. Pulmonary embolism was an unlikely diagnosis, given the patient’s presentation and his normal D-dimer level, which the text acknowledges, but then proceeds to state that computed tomographic angiography of the chest was done anyway.

After pleural effusion was diagnosed, question 2 asked what was the best management strategy for the patient at that time. The best management strategy was to give oral antibiotics with close follow-up because the patient was at low risk of a poor outcome, but he was advised to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics anyway.

I’m not quite sure of the point of the didactic exercise when actions are not consistent with the analytic rationale for testing and treatment.

In Reply: We thank Dr. Davidson for his comments. Indeed, the teaching points may appear inconsistent with the actual patient journey in this case. In the real world, physicians from different teams and specialties are involved in the care of a patient, and medical practice may not strictly adhere to guidelines.

In question 1, the emergency department physician decided to proceed with computed tomographic pulmonary angiography to rule out pulmonary embolism. Based on best practice guidelines, pulmonary angiography was not indicated, as the clinical pretest probability of pulmonary embolism was low, supported by the patient’s negative D-dimer test. When we wrote the article, as we already had the scan, we used it to support the learning points in terms of findings on computed tomography at the early stage of a developing empyema, and also to support that the scan was in fact not indicated (not the other way around).

As for question 2, specific data-driven guidelines do not exist on how best to manage patients with bronchopneumonia with an early evolving parapneumonic effusion. In the text that follows question 2, we stated that management as an inpatient or outpatient would have been reasonable. Although we considered the patient at low risk for a poor outcome, we offered inpatient admission at the time for better control of his severe pleuritic pain (this could have been made clearer in the text), as well as close monitoring of his evolving parapneumonic effusion, and we do not believe that this contradicts the teaching points of this case.

In Reply: We thank Dr. Davidson for his comments. Indeed, the teaching points may appear inconsistent with the actual patient journey in this case. In the real world, physicians from different teams and specialties are involved in the care of a patient, and medical practice may not strictly adhere to guidelines.

In question 1, the emergency department physician decided to proceed with computed tomographic pulmonary angiography to rule out pulmonary embolism. Based on best practice guidelines, pulmonary angiography was not indicated, as the clinical pretest probability of pulmonary embolism was low, supported by the patient’s negative D-dimer test. When we wrote the article, as we already had the scan, we used it to support the learning points in terms of findings on computed tomography at the early stage of a developing empyema, and also to support that the scan was in fact not indicated (not the other way around).

As for question 2, specific data-driven guidelines do not exist on how best to manage patients with bronchopneumonia with an early evolving parapneumonic effusion. In the text that follows question 2, we stated that management as an inpatient or outpatient would have been reasonable. Although we considered the patient at low risk for a poor outcome, we offered inpatient admission at the time for better control of his severe pleuritic pain (this could have been made clearer in the text), as well as close monitoring of his evolving parapneumonic effusion, and we do not believe that this contradicts the teaching points of this case.

In Reply: We thank Dr. Davidson for his comments. Indeed, the teaching points may appear inconsistent with the actual patient journey in this case. In the real world, physicians from different teams and specialties are involved in the care of a patient, and medical practice may not strictly adhere to guidelines.

In question 1, the emergency department physician decided to proceed with computed tomographic pulmonary angiography to rule out pulmonary embolism. Based on best practice guidelines, pulmonary angiography was not indicated, as the clinical pretest probability of pulmonary embolism was low, supported by the patient’s negative D-dimer test. When we wrote the article, as we already had the scan, we used it to support the learning points in terms of findings on computed tomography at the early stage of a developing empyema, and also to support that the scan was in fact not indicated (not the other way around).

As for question 2, specific data-driven guidelines do not exist on how best to manage patients with bronchopneumonia with an early evolving parapneumonic effusion. In the text that follows question 2, we stated that management as an inpatient or outpatient would have been reasonable. Although we considered the patient at low risk for a poor outcome, we offered inpatient admission at the time for better control of his severe pleuritic pain (this could have been made clearer in the text), as well as close monitoring of his evolving parapneumonic effusion, and we do not believe that this contradicts the teaching points of this case.

Click here to read the supplement.

What can be done to provide a cost-effective treatment option for von Willebrand Disease?

Topics include:

• Review of Key Clinical Studies and Surgical Procedures
• Pharmacokinetics Comparison
• Pharmacoeconomic Comparisons

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

What can be done to provide a cost-effective treatment option for von Willebrand Disease?

Topics include:

• Review of Key Clinical Studies and Surgical Procedures
• Pharmacokinetics Comparison
• Pharmacoeconomic Comparisons

Click here to read the supplement.

Click here to read the supplement.

What can be done to provide a cost-effective treatment option for von Willebrand Disease?

Topics include:

• Review of Key Clinical Studies and Surgical Procedures
• Pharmacokinetics Comparison
• Pharmacoeconomic Comparisons

Click here to read the supplement.

Emergency medical services (EMS) system protocols vary in how they define and treat generalized convulsive status epilepticus, according to a review of EMS treatment protocols in California. “Many protocols did not follow evidence-based guidelines and did not accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus,” said John P. Betjemann, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues. They reported their findings in the March 26 issue of JAMA.

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a neurologic emergency, and trials published in 2001 and 2012 found that benzodiazepines are effective prehospital treatments for patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. These trials informed a 2016 evidence-based guideline that cites level A evidence for intramuscular midazolam, IV lorazepam, and IV diazepam as initial treatment options for adults.

To determine whether EMS system protocols follow these recommendations, the investigators reviewed treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California. The researchers reviewed EMS system protocols between May and June 2018 to determine when they were last updated and whether they defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline (namely, 5 or more minutes of continuous seizure or two or more discrete seizures between which a patient has incomplete recovery of consciousness). They also determined whether the protocols included any of the three benzodiazepines in the guideline and, if so, at what dose and using which route of administration.

Protocols’ most recent revision dates ranged between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven protocols (81.8%) were revised after the second clinical trial was published in 2012, and 17 (51.5%) were revised after the 2016 guideline. Seven EMS system protocols (21.2%) defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline. Thirty-two protocols (97.0%) included intramuscular midazolam, 2 (6.1%) included IV lorazepam, and 5 (15.2%) included IV diazepam.

Although the protocols “appropriately emphasized” intramuscular midazolam, the protocol doses often were lower than those used in the trials or recommended in the guideline. In addition, most protocols listed IV and intraosseous midazolam as options, although these treatments were not studied in the trials nor recommended in the guideline. In all, six of the protocols (18.2%) recommended at least one medication by the route and dose suggested in the trials or in the guideline.

“Why EMS system protocols deviate from the evidence and how this affects patient outcomes deserves further study,” the authors said.

The researchers noted that they examined EMS protocols in only one state and that “protocols may not necessarily reflect what emergency medical technicians actually do in practice.” In addition, the researchers accessed the most recent protocols by consulting EMS system websites rather than by contacting each EMS system for its most up-to-date protocol.

The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and from Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 Mar 26.

Emergency medical services (EMS) system protocols vary in how they define and treat generalized convulsive status epilepticus, according to a review of EMS treatment protocols in California. “Many protocols did not follow evidence-based guidelines and did not accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus,” said John P. Betjemann, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues. They reported their findings in the March 26 issue of JAMA.

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a neurologic emergency, and trials published in 2001 and 2012 found that benzodiazepines are effective prehospital treatments for patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. These trials informed a 2016 evidence-based guideline that cites level A evidence for intramuscular midazolam, IV lorazepam, and IV diazepam as initial treatment options for adults.

To determine whether EMS system protocols follow these recommendations, the investigators reviewed treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California. The researchers reviewed EMS system protocols between May and June 2018 to determine when they were last updated and whether they defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline (namely, 5 or more minutes of continuous seizure or two or more discrete seizures between which a patient has incomplete recovery of consciousness). They also determined whether the protocols included any of the three benzodiazepines in the guideline and, if so, at what dose and using which route of administration.

Protocols’ most recent revision dates ranged between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven protocols (81.8%) were revised after the second clinical trial was published in 2012, and 17 (51.5%) were revised after the 2016 guideline. Seven EMS system protocols (21.2%) defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline. Thirty-two protocols (97.0%) included intramuscular midazolam, 2 (6.1%) included IV lorazepam, and 5 (15.2%) included IV diazepam.

Although the protocols “appropriately emphasized” intramuscular midazolam, the protocol doses often were lower than those used in the trials or recommended in the guideline. In addition, most protocols listed IV and intraosseous midazolam as options, although these treatments were not studied in the trials nor recommended in the guideline. In all, six of the protocols (18.2%) recommended at least one medication by the route and dose suggested in the trials or in the guideline.

“Why EMS system protocols deviate from the evidence and how this affects patient outcomes deserves further study,” the authors said.

The researchers noted that they examined EMS protocols in only one state and that “protocols may not necessarily reflect what emergency medical technicians actually do in practice.” In addition, the researchers accessed the most recent protocols by consulting EMS system websites rather than by contacting each EMS system for its most up-to-date protocol.

The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and from Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 Mar 26.

Emergency medical services (EMS) system protocols vary in how they define and treat generalized convulsive status epilepticus, according to a review of EMS treatment protocols in California. “Many protocols did not follow evidence-based guidelines and did not accurately define generalized convulsive status epilepticus,” said John P. Betjemann, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues. They reported their findings in the March 26 issue of JAMA.

Generalized convulsive status epilepticus is a neurologic emergency, and trials published in 2001 and 2012 found that benzodiazepines are effective prehospital treatments for patients with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. These trials informed a 2016 evidence-based guideline that cites level A evidence for intramuscular midazolam, IV lorazepam, and IV diazepam as initial treatment options for adults.

To determine whether EMS system protocols follow these recommendations, the investigators reviewed treatment protocols from 33 EMS systems that cover the 58 counties in California. The researchers reviewed EMS system protocols between May and June 2018 to determine when they were last updated and whether they defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline (namely, 5 or more minutes of continuous seizure or two or more discrete seizures between which a patient has incomplete recovery of consciousness). They also determined whether the protocols included any of the three benzodiazepines in the guideline and, if so, at what dose and using which route of administration.

Protocols’ most recent revision dates ranged between 2007 and 2018. Twenty-seven protocols (81.8%) were revised after the second clinical trial was published in 2012, and 17 (51.5%) were revised after the 2016 guideline. Seven EMS system protocols (21.2%) defined generalized convulsive status epilepticus according to the guideline. Thirty-two protocols (97.0%) included intramuscular midazolam, 2 (6.1%) included IV lorazepam, and 5 (15.2%) included IV diazepam.

Although the protocols “appropriately emphasized” intramuscular midazolam, the protocol doses often were lower than those used in the trials or recommended in the guideline. In addition, most protocols listed IV and intraosseous midazolam as options, although these treatments were not studied in the trials nor recommended in the guideline. In all, six of the protocols (18.2%) recommended at least one medication by the route and dose suggested in the trials or in the guideline.

“Why EMS system protocols deviate from the evidence and how this affects patient outcomes deserves further study,” the authors said.

The researchers noted that they examined EMS protocols in only one state and that “protocols may not necessarily reflect what emergency medical technicians actually do in practice.” In addition, the researchers accessed the most recent protocols by consulting EMS system websites rather than by contacting each EMS system for its most up-to-date protocol.

The authors reported personal compensation from JAMA Neurology and from Continuum Audio unrelated to the present study, as well as grants from the National Institutes of Health.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Betjemann JP et al. JAMA. 2019 Mar 26.

HONOLULU – A little more than a year ago, results from the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials substantially broadened the time window for endovascular thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke by selecting patients using brain imaging. Stroke clinicians are now trying to reconcile widespread, routine use of this life-changing treatment against an uncertain need to replicate the higher-end perfusion CT and analytical software imaging that these landmark trials used for patient selection. This has produced a schism in what experts advise for using endovascular thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke patients.

“Go open the artery, people!” Michael D. Hill, MD, exhorted during a talk at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Don’t get over-selective; more people will benefit than you think,” said Dr. Hill, a professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

“We are over-selecting, and depriving patients,” commented Raul C. Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta and a lead investigator of the DAWN trial, speaking from the audience during a discussion at the session where Dr. Hill spoke.

“The prevalence of treatable [acute ischemic stroke] patients is far higher than the prevalence of patients who are not good candidates, so you just want to exclude the ‘wipe-outs’; that’s what we do,” Dr. Hill explained. “Fortunately, endovascular therapy is very safe, and you’re not going to harm many patients. With other treatments [used routinely in medicine] some patients don’t benefit, but when you have a large effect size we use the treatment on almost everyone. The effect size from thrombectomy is so large it’s an argument to treat almost everyone, although the patients in the trials were selected by imaging.”

Dr. Hill repeatedly stressed that for most patients a non-contrast CT image is usually adequate to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue and a low risk for hemorrhage from intervention, and he endorsed also doing CT angiography to further inform the diagnosis. But he dismissed CT perfusion imaging as unnecessary. “Noncontrast CT and CT angiography are more than adequate to make treatment decisions,” he said. “The prevalence of poor collaterals is quite low, about 10%,” which means that about 90% of acute ischemic stroke patients will have more slowly progressing infarction,” making them amenable to treatment in an expanded time window and boosting the volume of salvageable tissue.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But these appeals for more liberal use of thrombectomy without the perfusion CT imaging used in DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21)and DEFUSE-3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:708-18) received push back. Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, a co-investigator on the DEFUSE 3 trial, highlighted the speed and simplicity of CT perfusion imaging, and its utility in helping to better target thrombectomy to the right patients. It’s “speedy, simple, and safe,” it “excludes patients who will not benefit” from thrombectomy, and it helps when the patient’s history and noncontrast CT images are inconclusive, said Dr. Lansberg, a neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Clinical presentation will only tell you so much.” With imaging that includes CT perfusion, “you can find out, in 5, 10 minutes, whether there is an occlusion, its location, the extent of dead tissue – that’s all really helpful,” said Marc Fisher, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “There is a tension now between doing treatment really fast and the concept of slow and fast evolvers. For slow evolvers, the concern about speed is irrelevant because it can take days” for their brains to have substantial damage. “For the fast evolvers, time matters, but they could also possibly be harmed; that’s why we need more data.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A pitch for more data also came from Pooja Khatri, MD, who also spoke at the session. “There is a real tension now between personalizing the imaging and figuring out exactly the right patients against the time trade off for doing that. Some argue to keep it simple and move fast, and by doing that you’ll wash out any difference from doing more fancy stuff. Plus some places, even in developed countries, can’t afford the image-processing software” used in the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials. The correct approach remains unclear and has created “an area ripe for a trial,” declared Dr. Khatri, professor of neurology at director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Hill has received honoraria from Merck and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Covidien, Medtronic, and Stryker. He has an ownership interest in Calgary Scientific and holds a patent on acute stroke triage methods. Dr. Nogueira has financial relationships with many companies. Dr. Lansberg and Dr. Fisher had no disclosures. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Lumosa and has received research funding from Cerenovus/Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Nervive.

mzoler@mdedge.com

HONOLULU – A little more than a year ago, results from the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials substantially broadened the time window for endovascular thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke by selecting patients using brain imaging. Stroke clinicians are now trying to reconcile widespread, routine use of this life-changing treatment against an uncertain need to replicate the higher-end perfusion CT and analytical software imaging that these landmark trials used for patient selection. This has produced a schism in what experts advise for using endovascular thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke patients.

“Go open the artery, people!” Michael D. Hill, MD, exhorted during a talk at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Don’t get over-selective; more people will benefit than you think,” said Dr. Hill, a professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

“We are over-selecting, and depriving patients,” commented Raul C. Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta and a lead investigator of the DAWN trial, speaking from the audience during a discussion at the session where Dr. Hill spoke.

“The prevalence of treatable [acute ischemic stroke] patients is far higher than the prevalence of patients who are not good candidates, so you just want to exclude the ‘wipe-outs’; that’s what we do,” Dr. Hill explained. “Fortunately, endovascular therapy is very safe, and you’re not going to harm many patients. With other treatments [used routinely in medicine] some patients don’t benefit, but when you have a large effect size we use the treatment on almost everyone. The effect size from thrombectomy is so large it’s an argument to treat almost everyone, although the patients in the trials were selected by imaging.”

Dr. Hill repeatedly stressed that for most patients a non-contrast CT image is usually adequate to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue and a low risk for hemorrhage from intervention, and he endorsed also doing CT angiography to further inform the diagnosis. But he dismissed CT perfusion imaging as unnecessary. “Noncontrast CT and CT angiography are more than adequate to make treatment decisions,” he said. “The prevalence of poor collaterals is quite low, about 10%,” which means that about 90% of acute ischemic stroke patients will have more slowly progressing infarction,” making them amenable to treatment in an expanded time window and boosting the volume of salvageable tissue.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But these appeals for more liberal use of thrombectomy without the perfusion CT imaging used in DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21)and DEFUSE-3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:708-18) received push back. Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, a co-investigator on the DEFUSE 3 trial, highlighted the speed and simplicity of CT perfusion imaging, and its utility in helping to better target thrombectomy to the right patients. It’s “speedy, simple, and safe,” it “excludes patients who will not benefit” from thrombectomy, and it helps when the patient’s history and noncontrast CT images are inconclusive, said Dr. Lansberg, a neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Clinical presentation will only tell you so much.” With imaging that includes CT perfusion, “you can find out, in 5, 10 minutes, whether there is an occlusion, its location, the extent of dead tissue – that’s all really helpful,” said Marc Fisher, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “There is a tension now between doing treatment really fast and the concept of slow and fast evolvers. For slow evolvers, the concern about speed is irrelevant because it can take days” for their brains to have substantial damage. “For the fast evolvers, time matters, but they could also possibly be harmed; that’s why we need more data.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A pitch for more data also came from Pooja Khatri, MD, who also spoke at the session. “There is a real tension now between personalizing the imaging and figuring out exactly the right patients against the time trade off for doing that. Some argue to keep it simple and move fast, and by doing that you’ll wash out any difference from doing more fancy stuff. Plus some places, even in developed countries, can’t afford the image-processing software” used in the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials. The correct approach remains unclear and has created “an area ripe for a trial,” declared Dr. Khatri, professor of neurology at director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Hill has received honoraria from Merck and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Covidien, Medtronic, and Stryker. He has an ownership interest in Calgary Scientific and holds a patent on acute stroke triage methods. Dr. Nogueira has financial relationships with many companies. Dr. Lansberg and Dr. Fisher had no disclosures. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Lumosa and has received research funding from Cerenovus/Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Nervive.

mzoler@mdedge.com

HONOLULU – A little more than a year ago, results from the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials substantially broadened the time window for endovascular thrombectomy of acute ischemic stroke by selecting patients using brain imaging. Stroke clinicians are now trying to reconcile widespread, routine use of this life-changing treatment against an uncertain need to replicate the higher-end perfusion CT and analytical software imaging that these landmark trials used for patient selection. This has produced a schism in what experts advise for using endovascular thrombectomy on acute ischemic stroke patients.

“Go open the artery, people!” Michael D. Hill, MD, exhorted during a talk at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. “Don’t get over-selective; more people will benefit than you think,” said Dr. Hill, a professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

“We are over-selecting, and depriving patients,” commented Raul C. Nogueira, MD, professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta and a lead investigator of the DAWN trial, speaking from the audience during a discussion at the session where Dr. Hill spoke.

“The prevalence of treatable [acute ischemic stroke] patients is far higher than the prevalence of patients who are not good candidates, so you just want to exclude the ‘wipe-outs’; that’s what we do,” Dr. Hill explained. “Fortunately, endovascular therapy is very safe, and you’re not going to harm many patients. With other treatments [used routinely in medicine] some patients don’t benefit, but when you have a large effect size we use the treatment on almost everyone. The effect size from thrombectomy is so large it’s an argument to treat almost everyone, although the patients in the trials were selected by imaging.”

Dr. Hill repeatedly stressed that for most patients a non-contrast CT image is usually adequate to identify patients with salvageable brain tissue and a low risk for hemorrhage from intervention, and he endorsed also doing CT angiography to further inform the diagnosis. But he dismissed CT perfusion imaging as unnecessary. “Noncontrast CT and CT angiography are more than adequate to make treatment decisions,” he said. “The prevalence of poor collaterals is quite low, about 10%,” which means that about 90% of acute ischemic stroke patients will have more slowly progressing infarction,” making them amenable to treatment in an expanded time window and boosting the volume of salvageable tissue.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But these appeals for more liberal use of thrombectomy without the perfusion CT imaging used in DAWN (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 4;378[1]:11-21)and DEFUSE-3 (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378[8]:708-18) received push back. Maarten G. Lansberg, MD, a co-investigator on the DEFUSE 3 trial, highlighted the speed and simplicity of CT perfusion imaging, and its utility in helping to better target thrombectomy to the right patients. It’s “speedy, simple, and safe,” it “excludes patients who will not benefit” from thrombectomy, and it helps when the patient’s history and noncontrast CT images are inconclusive, said Dr. Lansberg, a neurologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Clinical presentation will only tell you so much.” With imaging that includes CT perfusion, “you can find out, in 5, 10 minutes, whether there is an occlusion, its location, the extent of dead tissue – that’s all really helpful,” said Marc Fisher, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “There is a tension now between doing treatment really fast and the concept of slow and fast evolvers. For slow evolvers, the concern about speed is irrelevant because it can take days” for their brains to have substantial damage. “For the fast evolvers, time matters, but they could also possibly be harmed; that’s why we need more data.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

A pitch for more data also came from Pooja Khatri, MD, who also spoke at the session. “There is a real tension now between personalizing the imaging and figuring out exactly the right patients against the time trade off for doing that. Some argue to keep it simple and move fast, and by doing that you’ll wash out any difference from doing more fancy stuff. Plus some places, even in developed countries, can’t afford the image-processing software” used in the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trials. The correct approach remains unclear and has created “an area ripe for a trial,” declared Dr. Khatri, professor of neurology at director of acute stroke at the University of Cincinnati.

Dr. Hill has received honoraria from Merck and received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Covidien, Medtronic, and Stryker. He has an ownership interest in Calgary Scientific and holds a patent on acute stroke triage methods. Dr. Nogueira has financial relationships with many companies. Dr. Lansberg and Dr. Fisher had no disclosures. Dr. Khatri has been a consultant to Lumosa and has received research funding from Cerenovus/Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and Nervive.

mzoler@mdedge.com

HONOLULU – Administering glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) early after onset of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) does not improve outcomes, according to data presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. Results suggest that GTN causes adverse effects in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), but this observation is not definitive, according to the researchers. Study results were published online ahead of print Feb. 6 in the Lancet.

Nitric oxide is a regulatory molecule that has vasoactive effects and promotes blood pressure reduction. Vascular levels of nitric oxide are low in stroke, which suggests that the molecule may be a target for stroke treatment. GTN, a nitric oxide donor, lowered blood pressure and improved functional outcome among patients with acute stroke in the phase 2 Rapid Intervention with GTN in Hypertensive Stroke Trial (RIGHT).

Philip Bath, MD, Stroke Association Professor of Stroke Medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues conducted the RIGHT-2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GTN when administered early after onset of suspected stroke. Paramedics randomized patients in equal groups to a GTN patch or a sham patch in the ambulance. Three more patches were administered in the hospital on the following days. Active and sham patches looked similar and had no writing on them, thus ensuring effective blinding upon administration. Investigators followed up patients by telephone at 90 days to assess the modified Rankin Scale score and markers of disability, mood, cognition, and quality of life.

Eligible participants were adults who had dialed emergency services, independently or with assistance, because of a possible stroke. They had a Face, Arm, Speech, Time (FAST) score of 2 or 3, were within 4 hours of onset, and had a systolic blood pressure greater than 120 mm Hg. Patients from nursing homes, those with hypoglycemia, those who were unconscious, and those with a witnessed seizure were excluded.

Dr. Bath and colleagues planned to enroll 850 patients from five ambulance services in 30 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Data were to be examined through an intention-to-treat analysis. During the trial, however, the investigators observed that the rate of stroke mimics was 26%, rather than the 12% that they had anticipated. To ensure the proper power for the study, the investigators increased the sample size to 1,149 patients. They also changed the planned data analysis from intention-to-treat to hierarchical analysis. Specifically, the researchers planned to perform the primary analysis in patients with stroke or TIA. If the results were positive, then they would perform a standard intention-to-treat analysis.

More than 99% of patients received the first patch. Approximately 57% of the population received the first two patches. One reason for this decrease in adherence was that many patients were discharged from the hospital with a TIA or a stroke mimic. Participants’ average age was 72. The median time from onset to randomization was 71 minutes, and the median time to treatment was 73 minutes. Participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 162 mm Hg. Approximately 60% of the patients had a FAST score of 3. About 50% of participants had ischemic stroke, 13% had ICH, 10% had TIA, and 26% had stroke mimics.

At 1 hour after treatment initiation, systolic blood pressure decreased by 6.2 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 2.7 mm Hg among patients who received GTN, compared with controls. At one day, the differences were 5.2 mm Hg and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively, in treated patients, compared with controls. Blood pressure became similar between groups thereafter, “in part because of the tachyphylaxis that we know happens with GTN,” said Dr. Bath.

The researchers found no evidence of an effect of GTN on functional outcome at 90 days in participants with stroke or transient ischemic attack. The adjusted common odds ratio of poor outcome was 1.25 in the GTN group, compared with the control group (95 % confidence interval, 0.97-1.60; P = .083). “We were close to getting a negative trial,” said Dr. Bath.

Subgroup analyses revealed differences in outcome according to the time to randomization. GTN had a negative effect in patients treated within 1 hour of onset. Results were neutral, but tended to be negative, in patients treated between 1 and 2 hours of onset. Results were neutral, but tended to be positive, among patients treated at more than 2 hours after onset. There was no difference between groups in the rate of mortality.

One of the study’s limitations was its single-blind design. In addition, the trial was conducted in a single country, and the investigators changed the protocol after it was initiated. “We had a higher-than-expected [stroke] mimic rate, although I’m reassured by most experts that ... this is probably about right,” said Dr. Bath.

A potential reason for the neutral results is the negative effect that GTN had among patients with ICH, said Dr. Bath. “In that very early first hour, we are of course breaking a law that we learned in medical school, which is that the first part of hemostasis is spasm. We gave an antispasmodic: a vasodilator,” he added. “That is speculation.”

The trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Bath declared a modest ownership interest in Platelet Solutions and consultant or advisory board positions with Moleac, DiaMedica, Phagenesis, Nestle, and ReNeuron. The other investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bath PM et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB2.

HONOLULU – Administering glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) early after onset of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) does not improve outcomes, according to data presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. Results suggest that GTN causes adverse effects in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), but this observation is not definitive, according to the researchers. Study results were published online ahead of print Feb. 6 in the Lancet.

Nitric oxide is a regulatory molecule that has vasoactive effects and promotes blood pressure reduction. Vascular levels of nitric oxide are low in stroke, which suggests that the molecule may be a target for stroke treatment. GTN, a nitric oxide donor, lowered blood pressure and improved functional outcome among patients with acute stroke in the phase 2 Rapid Intervention with GTN in Hypertensive Stroke Trial (RIGHT).

Philip Bath, MD, Stroke Association Professor of Stroke Medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues conducted the RIGHT-2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GTN when administered early after onset of suspected stroke. Paramedics randomized patients in equal groups to a GTN patch or a sham patch in the ambulance. Three more patches were administered in the hospital on the following days. Active and sham patches looked similar and had no writing on them, thus ensuring effective blinding upon administration. Investigators followed up patients by telephone at 90 days to assess the modified Rankin Scale score and markers of disability, mood, cognition, and quality of life.

Eligible participants were adults who had dialed emergency services, independently or with assistance, because of a possible stroke. They had a Face, Arm, Speech, Time (FAST) score of 2 or 3, were within 4 hours of onset, and had a systolic blood pressure greater than 120 mm Hg. Patients from nursing homes, those with hypoglycemia, those who were unconscious, and those with a witnessed seizure were excluded.

Dr. Bath and colleagues planned to enroll 850 patients from five ambulance services in 30 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Data were to be examined through an intention-to-treat analysis. During the trial, however, the investigators observed that the rate of stroke mimics was 26%, rather than the 12% that they had anticipated. To ensure the proper power for the study, the investigators increased the sample size to 1,149 patients. They also changed the planned data analysis from intention-to-treat to hierarchical analysis. Specifically, the researchers planned to perform the primary analysis in patients with stroke or TIA. If the results were positive, then they would perform a standard intention-to-treat analysis.

More than 99% of patients received the first patch. Approximately 57% of the population received the first two patches. One reason for this decrease in adherence was that many patients were discharged from the hospital with a TIA or a stroke mimic. Participants’ average age was 72. The median time from onset to randomization was 71 minutes, and the median time to treatment was 73 minutes. Participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 162 mm Hg. Approximately 60% of the patients had a FAST score of 3. About 50% of participants had ischemic stroke, 13% had ICH, 10% had TIA, and 26% had stroke mimics.

At 1 hour after treatment initiation, systolic blood pressure decreased by 6.2 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 2.7 mm Hg among patients who received GTN, compared with controls. At one day, the differences were 5.2 mm Hg and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively, in treated patients, compared with controls. Blood pressure became similar between groups thereafter, “in part because of the tachyphylaxis that we know happens with GTN,” said Dr. Bath.

The researchers found no evidence of an effect of GTN on functional outcome at 90 days in participants with stroke or transient ischemic attack. The adjusted common odds ratio of poor outcome was 1.25 in the GTN group, compared with the control group (95 % confidence interval, 0.97-1.60; P = .083). “We were close to getting a negative trial,” said Dr. Bath.

Subgroup analyses revealed differences in outcome according to the time to randomization. GTN had a negative effect in patients treated within 1 hour of onset. Results were neutral, but tended to be negative, in patients treated between 1 and 2 hours of onset. Results were neutral, but tended to be positive, among patients treated at more than 2 hours after onset. There was no difference between groups in the rate of mortality.

One of the study’s limitations was its single-blind design. In addition, the trial was conducted in a single country, and the investigators changed the protocol after it was initiated. “We had a higher-than-expected [stroke] mimic rate, although I’m reassured by most experts that ... this is probably about right,” said Dr. Bath.

A potential reason for the neutral results is the negative effect that GTN had among patients with ICH, said Dr. Bath. “In that very early first hour, we are of course breaking a law that we learned in medical school, which is that the first part of hemostasis is spasm. We gave an antispasmodic: a vasodilator,” he added. “That is speculation.”

The trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Bath declared a modest ownership interest in Platelet Solutions and consultant or advisory board positions with Moleac, DiaMedica, Phagenesis, Nestle, and ReNeuron. The other investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bath PM et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB2.

HONOLULU – Administering glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) early after onset of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) does not improve outcomes, according to data presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. Results suggest that GTN causes adverse effects in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), but this observation is not definitive, according to the researchers. Study results were published online ahead of print Feb. 6 in the Lancet.

Nitric oxide is a regulatory molecule that has vasoactive effects and promotes blood pressure reduction. Vascular levels of nitric oxide are low in stroke, which suggests that the molecule may be a target for stroke treatment. GTN, a nitric oxide donor, lowered blood pressure and improved functional outcome among patients with acute stroke in the phase 2 Rapid Intervention with GTN in Hypertensive Stroke Trial (RIGHT).

Philip Bath, MD, Stroke Association Professor of Stroke Medicine at the University of Nottingham (England), and colleagues conducted the RIGHT-2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GTN when administered early after onset of suspected stroke. Paramedics randomized patients in equal groups to a GTN patch or a sham patch in the ambulance. Three more patches were administered in the hospital on the following days. Active and sham patches looked similar and had no writing on them, thus ensuring effective blinding upon administration. Investigators followed up patients by telephone at 90 days to assess the modified Rankin Scale score and markers of disability, mood, cognition, and quality of life.

Eligible participants were adults who had dialed emergency services, independently or with assistance, because of a possible stroke. They had a Face, Arm, Speech, Time (FAST) score of 2 or 3, were within 4 hours of onset, and had a systolic blood pressure greater than 120 mm Hg. Patients from nursing homes, those with hypoglycemia, those who were unconscious, and those with a witnessed seizure were excluded.

Dr. Bath and colleagues planned to enroll 850 patients from five ambulance services in 30 hospitals across the United Kingdom. Data were to be examined through an intention-to-treat analysis. During the trial, however, the investigators observed that the rate of stroke mimics was 26%, rather than the 12% that they had anticipated. To ensure the proper power for the study, the investigators increased the sample size to 1,149 patients. They also changed the planned data analysis from intention-to-treat to hierarchical analysis. Specifically, the researchers planned to perform the primary analysis in patients with stroke or TIA. If the results were positive, then they would perform a standard intention-to-treat analysis.

More than 99% of patients received the first patch. Approximately 57% of the population received the first two patches. One reason for this decrease in adherence was that many patients were discharged from the hospital with a TIA or a stroke mimic. Participants’ average age was 72. The median time from onset to randomization was 71 minutes, and the median time to treatment was 73 minutes. Participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 162 mm Hg. Approximately 60% of the patients had a FAST score of 3. About 50% of participants had ischemic stroke, 13% had ICH, 10% had TIA, and 26% had stroke mimics.

At 1 hour after treatment initiation, systolic blood pressure decreased by 6.2 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 2.7 mm Hg among patients who received GTN, compared with controls. At one day, the differences were 5.2 mm Hg and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively, in treated patients, compared with controls. Blood pressure became similar between groups thereafter, “in part because of the tachyphylaxis that we know happens with GTN,” said Dr. Bath.

The researchers found no evidence of an effect of GTN on functional outcome at 90 days in participants with stroke or transient ischemic attack. The adjusted common odds ratio of poor outcome was 1.25 in the GTN group, compared with the control group (95 % confidence interval, 0.97-1.60; P = .083). “We were close to getting a negative trial,” said Dr. Bath.

Subgroup analyses revealed differences in outcome according to the time to randomization. GTN had a negative effect in patients treated within 1 hour of onset. Results were neutral, but tended to be negative, in patients treated between 1 and 2 hours of onset. Results were neutral, but tended to be positive, among patients treated at more than 2 hours after onset. There was no difference between groups in the rate of mortality.

One of the study’s limitations was its single-blind design. In addition, the trial was conducted in a single country, and the investigators changed the protocol after it was initiated. “We had a higher-than-expected [stroke] mimic rate, although I’m reassured by most experts that ... this is probably about right,” said Dr. Bath.

A potential reason for the neutral results is the negative effect that GTN had among patients with ICH, said Dr. Bath. “In that very early first hour, we are of course breaking a law that we learned in medical school, which is that the first part of hemostasis is spasm. We gave an antispasmodic: a vasodilator,” he added. “That is speculation.”

The trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Bath declared a modest ownership interest in Platelet Solutions and consultant or advisory board positions with Moleac, DiaMedica, Phagenesis, Nestle, and ReNeuron. The other investigators declared no conflicts of interest.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bath PM et al. ISC 2019, Abstract LB2.

The prevalence of severe maternal morbidity has nearly tripled since 1997 in California, while racial and ethnic disparities “have remained persistent,” according to a study covering almost 8.3 million births in California.

Changes in severe maternal morbidity (SMM) prevalence from 1997 to 2014 were fairly consistent by race/ethnicity, although increases for black (179%), Asian/Pacific Islander (175%), and Hispanic (173%) women were somewhat larger than for whites (163%), Stephanie A. Leonard, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and her associates reported in Annals of Epidemiology.

Differences between races/ethnicities over the entire study period were seen for SMM with and without transfusion-only cases. Individual-level factors such as cesarean birth, comorbidities, and anemia “contribute to, but do not fully explain, these disparities. Additionally, changes in the characteristics of pregnant women – including increases in comorbidities – have not affected racial/ethnic differences in severe maternal morbidity over time,” the investigators wrote.

The cohort study used data for 8,252,025 live births with birth certificates that were previously linked to delivery discharge records. SMM was measured using the Severe Maternity Morbidity Index. Because “blood transfusion is the only qualifying indicator for approximately half of SMM cases … we also studied a subset of SMM that excluded those cases for which the only indication was a blood transfusion,” they noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Leonard SA et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2019.02.007.

The prevalence of severe maternal morbidity has nearly tripled since 1997 in California, while racial and ethnic disparities “have remained persistent,” according to a study covering almost 8.3 million births in California.

Changes in severe maternal morbidity (SMM) prevalence from 1997 to 2014 were fairly consistent by race/ethnicity, although increases for black (179%), Asian/Pacific Islander (175%), and Hispanic (173%) women were somewhat larger than for whites (163%), Stephanie A. Leonard, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and her associates reported in Annals of Epidemiology.

Differences between races/ethnicities over the entire study period were seen for SMM with and without transfusion-only cases. Individual-level factors such as cesarean birth, comorbidities, and anemia “contribute to, but do not fully explain, these disparities. Additionally, changes in the characteristics of pregnant women – including increases in comorbidities – have not affected racial/ethnic differences in severe maternal morbidity over time,” the investigators wrote.

The cohort study used data for 8,252,025 live births with birth certificates that were previously linked to delivery discharge records. SMM was measured using the Severe Maternity Morbidity Index. Because “blood transfusion is the only qualifying indicator for approximately half of SMM cases … we also studied a subset of SMM that excluded those cases for which the only indication was a blood transfusion,” they noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Leonard SA et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2019.02.007.

The prevalence of severe maternal morbidity has nearly tripled since 1997 in California, while racial and ethnic disparities “have remained persistent,” according to a study covering almost 8.3 million births in California.

Changes in severe maternal morbidity (SMM) prevalence from 1997 to 2014 were fairly consistent by race/ethnicity, although increases for black (179%), Asian/Pacific Islander (175%), and Hispanic (173%) women were somewhat larger than for whites (163%), Stephanie A. Leonard, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and her associates reported in Annals of Epidemiology.

Differences between races/ethnicities over the entire study period were seen for SMM with and without transfusion-only cases. Individual-level factors such as cesarean birth, comorbidities, and anemia “contribute to, but do not fully explain, these disparities. Additionally, changes in the characteristics of pregnant women – including increases in comorbidities – have not affected racial/ethnic differences in severe maternal morbidity over time,” the investigators wrote.

The cohort study used data for 8,252,025 live births with birth certificates that were previously linked to delivery discharge records. SMM was measured using the Severe Maternity Morbidity Index. Because “blood transfusion is the only qualifying indicator for approximately half of SMM cases … we also studied a subset of SMM that excluded those cases for which the only indication was a blood transfusion,” they noted.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Leonard SA et al. Ann Epidemiol. 2019 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2019.02.007.

SAN DIEGO – A simplified version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, known as eSOFA, has the potential to make it easier for hospitals to benchmark sepsis outcomes and quality of care, and could propel new sepsis research. The new method replaces some of SOFA’s more subjective criteria with objective measures.

eSOFA relies on electronic health records to reduce reliance on administrative records, which suffer from cross-hospital variability in diagnosis and coding practices, as well as changes in these practices over time. The diagnosis of sepsis itself is also highly subjective. Instead, eSOFA determines dysfunction in six organ systems, indicated by use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and the presence of abnormal laboratory values.

“The SOFA score includes measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale, which undoubtedly at the bedside is a very important clinical sign, but when trying to implement something that is objective for purposes of retrospective case counting and standardization, it can be problematic. The measures we chose [for eSOFA] are concrete, important maneuvers that were initiated by clinicians,” Chanu Rhee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Rhee is assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. He presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the work was simultaneously published online in Critical Care Medicine.

Key elements of SOFA that pose challenges for administrative data include: PaO₂/FiO₂, which are not routinely measured, and can be difficult to assign to arterial or venous samples; inconsistency in blood pressure and transient increases in vasopressor dose; the subjectivity of the Glasgow Coma Scale, which is also difficult to assess in sedated patients; and inconsistent urine output.

eSOFA introduced new measures for various organ functions, including cardiovascular (vasopressor initiation), pulmonary (mechanical ventilation initiation), renal (doubling of creatinine levels or a 50% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline), hepatic (bilirubin levels greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL and at least doubled from baseline), coagulation (platelet count less than 100 cells/mcL and at least a 50% decrease from a baseline of at least 100 cells/mcL), and neurological (lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L).

“[eSOFA] opens a window into inter-facility comparisons that has not been possible to do. It’s really critical to ask, ‘How am I doing compared to my peer institutions?’ If you’re doing worse, you can look at the whole spectrum of things to try to drive improvements in care,” said Dr. Rhee.

The new tool isn’t just limited to quality improvement research. Shaeesta Khan, MD, assistant professor of critical care medicine at Geisinger Medical Center,Danville, Pa., has found eSOFA to be useful in her research into how genetic polymorphisms play a role in sepsis outcomes. Geisinger has a large population of patients with completed whole genome sequencing, and Dr. Khan began by trying to glean sepsis outcomes from administrative data.

“I explained SOFA scores to our data broker, and he pulled up 3,000 patients and gave everybody a SOFA score based on the algorithm he created, and it was all over the chart. Once I started doing chart review and phenotype verification, it was just a nightmare,” Dr. Khan said in an interview.

After struggling with the project, one of her mentors put her in touch with one of Dr. Rhee’s colleagues, and she asked the data broker to modify the eSOFA algorithm to fit her specific criteria. “It was a blessing,” she said.

Now, she has data from 5,000 patients with sepsis and sequenced DNA, and can begin comparing outcomes and genetic variants. About 20 candidate genes for sepsis outcomes have been identified to date, but she has a particular interest in PCSK9, which is an innate immune system regulator. She hopes to present results at CCC49 in 2020.
 

Validating mortality prediction

The researchers compared eSOFA and SOFA in a sample from 111 U.S. acute care hospitals to see if eSOFA had a comparable predictive validity for mortality. The analysis included 942,360 adults seen between 2013 and 2015. A total of 11.1% (104,903) had a presumed serious infection based on a blood culture order and at least 4 consecutive days of antibiotic use.

The analysis showed that 6.1% of those with infections had a sepsis event based on at least a 2-point increase in SOFA score from baseline (Sepsis-3 criteria), compared with 4.4% identified by at least a 1-point increase in eSOFA score. A total of 34,174 patients (3.6%) overlapped between SOFA and eSOFA, which represented good agreement (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.81). Compared with SOFA/Sepsis-3, eSOFA had a sensitivity of 60%, and a positive predictive value of 82%.

Patients identified by eSOFA were slightly more ill, with more requiring ICU admission (41% vs. 35%), and a greater frequency of in-hospital mortality (17% vs. 14%). Those patients who were identified by SOFA/Sepsis-3, but missed by eSOFA, had an overall lower mortality (6%).

There was a similar risk of mortality across deciles between SOFA- and eSOFA-identified sepsis patients. In an independent analysis of four hospitals from the Emory system, the area under the receiver operating characteristics was 0.77 for eSOFA and 0.76 for SOFA (P less than .001).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the study. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):307-14.

SAN DIEGO – A simplified version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, known as eSOFA, has the potential to make it easier for hospitals to benchmark sepsis outcomes and quality of care, and could propel new sepsis research. The new method replaces some of SOFA’s more subjective criteria with objective measures.

eSOFA relies on electronic health records to reduce reliance on administrative records, which suffer from cross-hospital variability in diagnosis and coding practices, as well as changes in these practices over time. The diagnosis of sepsis itself is also highly subjective. Instead, eSOFA determines dysfunction in six organ systems, indicated by use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and the presence of abnormal laboratory values.

“The SOFA score includes measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale, which undoubtedly at the bedside is a very important clinical sign, but when trying to implement something that is objective for purposes of retrospective case counting and standardization, it can be problematic. The measures we chose [for eSOFA] are concrete, important maneuvers that were initiated by clinicians,” Chanu Rhee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Rhee is assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. He presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the work was simultaneously published online in Critical Care Medicine.

Key elements of SOFA that pose challenges for administrative data include: PaO₂/FiO₂, which are not routinely measured, and can be difficult to assign to arterial or venous samples; inconsistency in blood pressure and transient increases in vasopressor dose; the subjectivity of the Glasgow Coma Scale, which is also difficult to assess in sedated patients; and inconsistent urine output.

eSOFA introduced new measures for various organ functions, including cardiovascular (vasopressor initiation), pulmonary (mechanical ventilation initiation), renal (doubling of creatinine levels or a 50% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline), hepatic (bilirubin levels greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL and at least doubled from baseline), coagulation (platelet count less than 100 cells/mcL and at least a 50% decrease from a baseline of at least 100 cells/mcL), and neurological (lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L).

“[eSOFA] opens a window into inter-facility comparisons that has not been possible to do. It’s really critical to ask, ‘How am I doing compared to my peer institutions?’ If you’re doing worse, you can look at the whole spectrum of things to try to drive improvements in care,” said Dr. Rhee.

The new tool isn’t just limited to quality improvement research. Shaeesta Khan, MD, assistant professor of critical care medicine at Geisinger Medical Center,Danville, Pa., has found eSOFA to be useful in her research into how genetic polymorphisms play a role in sepsis outcomes. Geisinger has a large population of patients with completed whole genome sequencing, and Dr. Khan began by trying to glean sepsis outcomes from administrative data.

“I explained SOFA scores to our data broker, and he pulled up 3,000 patients and gave everybody a SOFA score based on the algorithm he created, and it was all over the chart. Once I started doing chart review and phenotype verification, it was just a nightmare,” Dr. Khan said in an interview.

After struggling with the project, one of her mentors put her in touch with one of Dr. Rhee’s colleagues, and she asked the data broker to modify the eSOFA algorithm to fit her specific criteria. “It was a blessing,” she said.

Now, she has data from 5,000 patients with sepsis and sequenced DNA, and can begin comparing outcomes and genetic variants. About 20 candidate genes for sepsis outcomes have been identified to date, but she has a particular interest in PCSK9, which is an innate immune system regulator. She hopes to present results at CCC49 in 2020.
 

Validating mortality prediction

The researchers compared eSOFA and SOFA in a sample from 111 U.S. acute care hospitals to see if eSOFA had a comparable predictive validity for mortality. The analysis included 942,360 adults seen between 2013 and 2015. A total of 11.1% (104,903) had a presumed serious infection based on a blood culture order and at least 4 consecutive days of antibiotic use.

The analysis showed that 6.1% of those with infections had a sepsis event based on at least a 2-point increase in SOFA score from baseline (Sepsis-3 criteria), compared with 4.4% identified by at least a 1-point increase in eSOFA score. A total of 34,174 patients (3.6%) overlapped between SOFA and eSOFA, which represented good agreement (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.81). Compared with SOFA/Sepsis-3, eSOFA had a sensitivity of 60%, and a positive predictive value of 82%.

Patients identified by eSOFA were slightly more ill, with more requiring ICU admission (41% vs. 35%), and a greater frequency of in-hospital mortality (17% vs. 14%). Those patients who were identified by SOFA/Sepsis-3, but missed by eSOFA, had an overall lower mortality (6%).

There was a similar risk of mortality across deciles between SOFA- and eSOFA-identified sepsis patients. In an independent analysis of four hospitals from the Emory system, the area under the receiver operating characteristics was 0.77 for eSOFA and 0.76 for SOFA (P less than .001).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the study. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):307-14.

SAN DIEGO – A simplified version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, known as eSOFA, has the potential to make it easier for hospitals to benchmark sepsis outcomes and quality of care, and could propel new sepsis research. The new method replaces some of SOFA’s more subjective criteria with objective measures.

eSOFA relies on electronic health records to reduce reliance on administrative records, which suffer from cross-hospital variability in diagnosis and coding practices, as well as changes in these practices over time. The diagnosis of sepsis itself is also highly subjective. Instead, eSOFA determines dysfunction in six organ systems, indicated by use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and the presence of abnormal laboratory values.

“The SOFA score includes measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale, which undoubtedly at the bedside is a very important clinical sign, but when trying to implement something that is objective for purposes of retrospective case counting and standardization, it can be problematic. The measures we chose [for eSOFA] are concrete, important maneuvers that were initiated by clinicians,” Chanu Rhee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Rhee is assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. He presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the work was simultaneously published online in Critical Care Medicine.

Key elements of SOFA that pose challenges for administrative data include: PaO₂/FiO₂, which are not routinely measured, and can be difficult to assign to arterial or venous samples; inconsistency in blood pressure and transient increases in vasopressor dose; the subjectivity of the Glasgow Coma Scale, which is also difficult to assess in sedated patients; and inconsistent urine output.

eSOFA introduced new measures for various organ functions, including cardiovascular (vasopressor initiation), pulmonary (mechanical ventilation initiation), renal (doubling of creatinine levels or a 50% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline), hepatic (bilirubin levels greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL and at least doubled from baseline), coagulation (platelet count less than 100 cells/mcL and at least a 50% decrease from a baseline of at least 100 cells/mcL), and neurological (lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L).

“[eSOFA] opens a window into inter-facility comparisons that has not been possible to do. It’s really critical to ask, ‘How am I doing compared to my peer institutions?’ If you’re doing worse, you can look at the whole spectrum of things to try to drive improvements in care,” said Dr. Rhee.

The new tool isn’t just limited to quality improvement research. Shaeesta Khan, MD, assistant professor of critical care medicine at Geisinger Medical Center,Danville, Pa., has found eSOFA to be useful in her research into how genetic polymorphisms play a role in sepsis outcomes. Geisinger has a large population of patients with completed whole genome sequencing, and Dr. Khan began by trying to glean sepsis outcomes from administrative data.

“I explained SOFA scores to our data broker, and he pulled up 3,000 patients and gave everybody a SOFA score based on the algorithm he created, and it was all over the chart. Once I started doing chart review and phenotype verification, it was just a nightmare,” Dr. Khan said in an interview.

After struggling with the project, one of her mentors put her in touch with one of Dr. Rhee’s colleagues, and she asked the data broker to modify the eSOFA algorithm to fit her specific criteria. “It was a blessing,” she said.

Now, she has data from 5,000 patients with sepsis and sequenced DNA, and can begin comparing outcomes and genetic variants. About 20 candidate genes for sepsis outcomes have been identified to date, but she has a particular interest in PCSK9, which is an innate immune system regulator. She hopes to present results at CCC49 in 2020.
 

Validating mortality prediction

The researchers compared eSOFA and SOFA in a sample from 111 U.S. acute care hospitals to see if eSOFA had a comparable predictive validity for mortality. The analysis included 942,360 adults seen between 2013 and 2015. A total of 11.1% (104,903) had a presumed serious infection based on a blood culture order and at least 4 consecutive days of antibiotic use.

The analysis showed that 6.1% of those with infections had a sepsis event based on at least a 2-point increase in SOFA score from baseline (Sepsis-3 criteria), compared with 4.4% identified by at least a 1-point increase in eSOFA score. A total of 34,174 patients (3.6%) overlapped between SOFA and eSOFA, which represented good agreement (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.81). Compared with SOFA/Sepsis-3, eSOFA had a sensitivity of 60%, and a positive predictive value of 82%.

Patients identified by eSOFA were slightly more ill, with more requiring ICU admission (41% vs. 35%), and a greater frequency of in-hospital mortality (17% vs. 14%). Those patients who were identified by SOFA/Sepsis-3, but missed by eSOFA, had an overall lower mortality (6%).

There was a similar risk of mortality across deciles between SOFA- and eSOFA-identified sepsis patients. In an independent analysis of four hospitals from the Emory system, the area under the receiver operating characteristics was 0.77 for eSOFA and 0.76 for SOFA (P less than .001).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the study. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):307-14.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition affecting approximately 2% to 3% of the population.^1,2 Beyond cutaneous manifestations, psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory state that is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including obesity,^3,4 type 2 diabetes mellitus,^5,6 hypertension,⁵ dyslipidemia,^3,7 metabolic syndrome,⁷ atherosclerosis,⁸ peripheral vascular disease,⁹ coronary artery calcification,¹⁰ myocardial infarction,^11-13 stroke,^9,14 and cardiac death.^15,16

Psoriasis also has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), possibly because of similar autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of both diseases.^17,18 However, there is no literature regarding the risk for acute gastrointestinal pathologies such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis in patients with psoriasis.

The primary objective of this study was to examine if patients with psoriasis are at increased risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis compared to the general population. The secondary objective was to determine if patients with severe psoriasis (ie, patients treated with phototherapy or systemic therapy) are at a higher risk for these conditions compared to patients with mild psoriasis.

Methods

Patients and Tools
A descriptive, population-based cohort study design with controls from a matched cohort was used to ascertain the effect of psoriasis status on patients’ risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis. Our cohort was selected using administrative data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) during the study period (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016).

Kaiser Permanente Southern California is a large integrated health maintenance organization that includes approximately 4 million patients as of December 31, 2016, and includes roughly 20% of the region’s population. The geographic area served extends from Bakersfield in the lower California Central Valley to San Diego on the border with Mexico. Membership demographics, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity composition are representative of California.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of psoriasis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 696.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L40.0, L40.4, L40.8, or L40.9) for at least 3 visits between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016. Patients were not excluded if they also had a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9-CM code 696.0; ICD-10-CM code L40.5x). Patients also must have been continuously enrolled for at least 1 year before and 1 year after the index date, which was defined as the date of the third psoriasis diagnosis.

Each patient with psoriasis was assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts: (1) severe psoriasis: patients who received UVB phototherapy, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, or ixekizumab during the study period; and (2) mild psoriasis: patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis who did not receive one of these therapies during the study period.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis at any time before the index date. Only patients older than 18 years were included.

Patients with psoriasis were frequency matched (1:5) with healthy patients, also from the KPSC network. Individuals were matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were described with means and SD for continuous variables as well as percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for continuous variables were used to compare the patients’ characteristics by psoriasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis among patients with and without psoriasis and among patients with mild and severe psoriasis. Proportionality assumption was validated using Pearson product moment correlation between the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and log transformed time for each covariate.

Results were presented as crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted HRs, where confounding factors (ie, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index [BMI], alcohol use, smoking status, income, education, and membership length) were adjusted. All tests were performed with SAS EG 5.1 and R software. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI), when appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,690,214 KPSC patients were eligible for the study; 10,307 (0.6%) met diagnostic and inclusion criteria for the psoriasis cohort. Patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher mean BMI (29.9 vs 28.7; P<.0001) as well as higher mean rates of alcohol use (56% vs 53%; P<.0001) and smoking (47% vs 38%; P<.01) compared to controls. Psoriasis patients had a shorter average duration of membership within the Kaiser network (P=.0001) compared to controls.

A total of 7416 patients met criteria for mild psoriasis and 2891 patients met criteria for severe psoriasis (eTable). Patients with severe psoriasis were significantly younger and had significantly higher mean BMI compared to patients with mild psoriasis (P<.0001 and P=.0001, respectively). No significant difference in rates of alcohol or tobacco use was detected among patients with mild and severe psoriasis.

Diverticulitis
Patients with psoriasis had a significantly greater prevalence of diverticulitis compared to the control cohort (5.1% vs 4.2%; P<.0001). There was no difference in prevalence between the severe psoriasis group and the mild psoriasis group (P=.96), but the time to diagnosis of diverticulitis was shorter in the severe psoriasis group than in the mild psoriasis group (7.2 years vs 7.9 years; P<.0001). Psoriasis patients had an incidence rate of diverticulitis of 6.61 per 1000 patient-years compared to 5.38 per 1000 patient-years in the control group. Psoriasis conferred a higher risk for diverticulitis in both the crude and adjusted models (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35 [P<.001] and HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; [P<.01], respectively)(Table 3); however, when stratified by disease severity, only patients with severe psoriasis were found to be at higher risk (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61; P<.001 for the adjusted model).

Comment

The objective of this study was to examine the background risks for specific gastrointestinal pathologies in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis compared to the general population. After adjusting for measured confounders, patients with severe psoriasis had a significantly higher risk of diverticulitis compared to the general population. Although more patients with severe psoriasis developed appendicitis or cholecystitis, the difference was not significant.

The pathogenesis of diverticulosis and diverticulitis has been thought to be related to increased intracolonic pressure and decreased dietary fiber intake, leading to formation of diverticula in the colon.¹⁹ Our study did not correct for differences in diet between the 2 groups, making it a possible confounding variable. Studies evaluating dietary habits of psoriatic patients have found that adult males with psoriasis might consume less fiber compared to healthy patients,²⁰ and psoriasis patients also might consume less whole-grain fiber.²¹ Furthermore, fiber deficiency also might affect gut flora, causing low-grade chronic inflammation,¹⁸ which also has been supported by response to anti-inflammatory medications such as mesalazine.²² Given the autoimmune association between psoriasis and IBD, it is possible that psoriasis also might create an environment of chronic inflammation in the gut, predisposing patients with psoriasis to diverticulitis. However, further research is needed to better evaluate this possibility.

Our study also does not address any potential effects on outcomes of specific treatments for psoriasis. Brandl et al²³ found that patients on immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases had longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, higher rates of emergency operations, and higher mortality while hospitalized. Because our results suggest that patients with severe psoriasis, who are therefore more likely to require treatment with an immunomodulator, are at higher risk for diverticulitis, these patients also might be at risk for poorer outcomes.

There is no literature evaluating the relationship between psoriasis and appendicitis. Our study found a slightly lower incidence rate compared to the national trend (9.38 per 10,000 patient-years in the United States in 2008) in both healthy patients and psoriasis patients.²⁴ Of note, this statistic includes children, whereas our study did not, which might in part account for the lower rate. However, Cheluvappa et al²⁵ hypothesized a relationship between appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy at a young age and protection against IBD. They also found that the mechanism for protection involves downregulation of the helper T cell (T_H17) pathway,²⁵ which also has been found to play a role in psoriasis pathogenesis.^26,27 Although our results suggest that the risk for appendicitis is not increased for patients with psoriasis, further research might be able to determine if appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy also can offer protection against development of psoriasis.

We found that patients with severe psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of cholecystitis compared to patients with mild psoriasis. Egeberg et al²⁸ found an increased risk for cholelithiasis among patients with psoriasis, which may contribute to a higher rate of cholecystitis. Although both acute and chronic cholecystitis were incorporated in this study, a Russian study found that chronic cholecystitis may be a predictor of progression of psoriasis.²⁹ Moreover, patients with severe psoriasis had a shorter duration to diagnosis of cholecystitis than patients with mild psoriasis. It is possible that patients with severe psoriasis are in a state of greater chronic inflammation than those with mild psoriasis, and therefore, when combined with other risk factors for cholecystitis, may progress to disease more quickly. Alternatively, this finding could be treatment related, as there have been reported cases of cholecystitis related to etanercept use in patients treated for psoriasis and juvenile polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis.^30,31 The relationship is not yet well defined, however, and further research is necessary to evaluate this association.

Study Strengths
Key strengths of this study include the large sample size and diversity of the patient population. Kaiser Permanente Southern California membership generally is representative of the broader community, making our results fairly generalizable to populations with health insurance. Use of a matched control cohort allows the results to be more specific to the disease of interest, and the population-based design minimizes bias.

Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the cohorts were categorized based on type of treatment received, exact therapies were not specified. As a retrospective study, it is difficult to control for potential confounding variables that are not included in the electronic medical record. The results of this study also demonstrated significantly shorter durations to diagnosis of all 3 conditions, indicating that surveillance bias may be present.

Conclusion

Patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk for diverticulitis compared to patients without psoriasis, which could be due to the chronic inflammatory state induced by psoriasis. Therefore, it may be beneficial for clinicians to evaluate psoriasis patients for other risk factors for diverticulitis and subsequently provide counseling to these patients to minimize their risk for diverticulitis. Psoriasis patients do not appear to be at an increased risk for appendicitis or cholecystitis compared to controls; however, further research is needed for confirmation.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition affecting approximately 2% to 3% of the population.^1,2 Beyond cutaneous manifestations, psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory state that is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including obesity,^3,4 type 2 diabetes mellitus,^5,6 hypertension,⁵ dyslipidemia,^3,7 metabolic syndrome,⁷ atherosclerosis,⁸ peripheral vascular disease,⁹ coronary artery calcification,¹⁰ myocardial infarction,^11-13 stroke,^9,14 and cardiac death.^15,16

Psoriasis also has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), possibly because of similar autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of both diseases.^17,18 However, there is no literature regarding the risk for acute gastrointestinal pathologies such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis in patients with psoriasis.

The primary objective of this study was to examine if patients with psoriasis are at increased risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis compared to the general population. The secondary objective was to determine if patients with severe psoriasis (ie, patients treated with phototherapy or systemic therapy) are at a higher risk for these conditions compared to patients with mild psoriasis.

Methods

Patients and Tools
A descriptive, population-based cohort study design with controls from a matched cohort was used to ascertain the effect of psoriasis status on patients’ risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis. Our cohort was selected using administrative data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) during the study period (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016).

Kaiser Permanente Southern California is a large integrated health maintenance organization that includes approximately 4 million patients as of December 31, 2016, and includes roughly 20% of the region’s population. The geographic area served extends from Bakersfield in the lower California Central Valley to San Diego on the border with Mexico. Membership demographics, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity composition are representative of California.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of psoriasis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 696.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L40.0, L40.4, L40.8, or L40.9) for at least 3 visits between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016. Patients were not excluded if they also had a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9-CM code 696.0; ICD-10-CM code L40.5x). Patients also must have been continuously enrolled for at least 1 year before and 1 year after the index date, which was defined as the date of the third psoriasis diagnosis.

Each patient with psoriasis was assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts: (1) severe psoriasis: patients who received UVB phototherapy, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, or ixekizumab during the study period; and (2) mild psoriasis: patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis who did not receive one of these therapies during the study period.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis at any time before the index date. Only patients older than 18 years were included.

Patients with psoriasis were frequency matched (1:5) with healthy patients, also from the KPSC network. Individuals were matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were described with means and SD for continuous variables as well as percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for continuous variables were used to compare the patients’ characteristics by psoriasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis among patients with and without psoriasis and among patients with mild and severe psoriasis. Proportionality assumption was validated using Pearson product moment correlation between the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and log transformed time for each covariate.

Results were presented as crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted HRs, where confounding factors (ie, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index [BMI], alcohol use, smoking status, income, education, and membership length) were adjusted. All tests were performed with SAS EG 5.1 and R software. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI), when appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,690,214 KPSC patients were eligible for the study; 10,307 (0.6%) met diagnostic and inclusion criteria for the psoriasis cohort. Patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher mean BMI (29.9 vs 28.7; P<.0001) as well as higher mean rates of alcohol use (56% vs 53%; P<.0001) and smoking (47% vs 38%; P<.01) compared to controls. Psoriasis patients had a shorter average duration of membership within the Kaiser network (P=.0001) compared to controls.

A total of 7416 patients met criteria for mild psoriasis and 2891 patients met criteria for severe psoriasis (eTable). Patients with severe psoriasis were significantly younger and had significantly higher mean BMI compared to patients with mild psoriasis (P<.0001 and P=.0001, respectively). No significant difference in rates of alcohol or tobacco use was detected among patients with mild and severe psoriasis.

Diverticulitis
Patients with psoriasis had a significantly greater prevalence of diverticulitis compared to the control cohort (5.1% vs 4.2%; P<.0001). There was no difference in prevalence between the severe psoriasis group and the mild psoriasis group (P=.96), but the time to diagnosis of diverticulitis was shorter in the severe psoriasis group than in the mild psoriasis group (7.2 years vs 7.9 years; P<.0001). Psoriasis patients had an incidence rate of diverticulitis of 6.61 per 1000 patient-years compared to 5.38 per 1000 patient-years in the control group. Psoriasis conferred a higher risk for diverticulitis in both the crude and adjusted models (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35 [P<.001] and HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; [P<.01], respectively)(Table 3); however, when stratified by disease severity, only patients with severe psoriasis were found to be at higher risk (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61; P<.001 for the adjusted model).

Comment

The objective of this study was to examine the background risks for specific gastrointestinal pathologies in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis compared to the general population. After adjusting for measured confounders, patients with severe psoriasis had a significantly higher risk of diverticulitis compared to the general population. Although more patients with severe psoriasis developed appendicitis or cholecystitis, the difference was not significant.

The pathogenesis of diverticulosis and diverticulitis has been thought to be related to increased intracolonic pressure and decreased dietary fiber intake, leading to formation of diverticula in the colon.¹⁹ Our study did not correct for differences in diet between the 2 groups, making it a possible confounding variable. Studies evaluating dietary habits of psoriatic patients have found that adult males with psoriasis might consume less fiber compared to healthy patients,²⁰ and psoriasis patients also might consume less whole-grain fiber.²¹ Furthermore, fiber deficiency also might affect gut flora, causing low-grade chronic inflammation,¹⁸ which also has been supported by response to anti-inflammatory medications such as mesalazine.²² Given the autoimmune association between psoriasis and IBD, it is possible that psoriasis also might create an environment of chronic inflammation in the gut, predisposing patients with psoriasis to diverticulitis. However, further research is needed to better evaluate this possibility.

Our study also does not address any potential effects on outcomes of specific treatments for psoriasis. Brandl et al²³ found that patients on immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases had longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, higher rates of emergency operations, and higher mortality while hospitalized. Because our results suggest that patients with severe psoriasis, who are therefore more likely to require treatment with an immunomodulator, are at higher risk for diverticulitis, these patients also might be at risk for poorer outcomes.

There is no literature evaluating the relationship between psoriasis and appendicitis. Our study found a slightly lower incidence rate compared to the national trend (9.38 per 10,000 patient-years in the United States in 2008) in both healthy patients and psoriasis patients.²⁴ Of note, this statistic includes children, whereas our study did not, which might in part account for the lower rate. However, Cheluvappa et al²⁵ hypothesized a relationship between appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy at a young age and protection against IBD. They also found that the mechanism for protection involves downregulation of the helper T cell (T_H17) pathway,²⁵ which also has been found to play a role in psoriasis pathogenesis.^26,27 Although our results suggest that the risk for appendicitis is not increased for patients with psoriasis, further research might be able to determine if appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy also can offer protection against development of psoriasis.

We found that patients with severe psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of cholecystitis compared to patients with mild psoriasis. Egeberg et al²⁸ found an increased risk for cholelithiasis among patients with psoriasis, which may contribute to a higher rate of cholecystitis. Although both acute and chronic cholecystitis were incorporated in this study, a Russian study found that chronic cholecystitis may be a predictor of progression of psoriasis.²⁹ Moreover, patients with severe psoriasis had a shorter duration to diagnosis of cholecystitis than patients with mild psoriasis. It is possible that patients with severe psoriasis are in a state of greater chronic inflammation than those with mild psoriasis, and therefore, when combined with other risk factors for cholecystitis, may progress to disease more quickly. Alternatively, this finding could be treatment related, as there have been reported cases of cholecystitis related to etanercept use in patients treated for psoriasis and juvenile polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis.^30,31 The relationship is not yet well defined, however, and further research is necessary to evaluate this association.

Study Strengths
Key strengths of this study include the large sample size and diversity of the patient population. Kaiser Permanente Southern California membership generally is representative of the broader community, making our results fairly generalizable to populations with health insurance. Use of a matched control cohort allows the results to be more specific to the disease of interest, and the population-based design minimizes bias.

Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the cohorts were categorized based on type of treatment received, exact therapies were not specified. As a retrospective study, it is difficult to control for potential confounding variables that are not included in the electronic medical record. The results of this study also demonstrated significantly shorter durations to diagnosis of all 3 conditions, indicating that surveillance bias may be present.

Conclusion

Patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk for diverticulitis compared to patients without psoriasis, which could be due to the chronic inflammatory state induced by psoriasis. Therefore, it may be beneficial for clinicians to evaluate psoriasis patients for other risk factors for diverticulitis and subsequently provide counseling to these patients to minimize their risk for diverticulitis. Psoriasis patients do not appear to be at an increased risk for appendicitis or cholecystitis compared to controls; however, further research is needed for confirmation.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition affecting approximately 2% to 3% of the population.^1,2 Beyond cutaneous manifestations, psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory state that is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including obesity,^3,4 type 2 diabetes mellitus,^5,6 hypertension,⁵ dyslipidemia,^3,7 metabolic syndrome,⁷ atherosclerosis,⁸ peripheral vascular disease,⁹ coronary artery calcification,¹⁰ myocardial infarction,^11-13 stroke,^9,14 and cardiac death.^15,16

Psoriasis also has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), possibly because of similar autoimmune mechanisms in the pathogenesis of both diseases.^17,18 However, there is no literature regarding the risk for acute gastrointestinal pathologies such as appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis in patients with psoriasis.

The primary objective of this study was to examine if patients with psoriasis are at increased risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis compared to the general population. The secondary objective was to determine if patients with severe psoriasis (ie, patients treated with phototherapy or systemic therapy) are at a higher risk for these conditions compared to patients with mild psoriasis.

Methods

Patients and Tools
A descriptive, population-based cohort study design with controls from a matched cohort was used to ascertain the effect of psoriasis status on patients’ risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis. Our cohort was selected using administrative data from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) during the study period (January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2016).

Kaiser Permanente Southern California is a large integrated health maintenance organization that includes approximately 4 million patients as of December 31, 2016, and includes roughly 20% of the region’s population. The geographic area served extends from Bakersfield in the lower California Central Valley to San Diego on the border with Mexico. Membership demographics, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity composition are representative of California.

Patients were included if they had a diagnosis of psoriasis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 696.1; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-10-CM] codes L40.0, L40.4, L40.8, or L40.9) for at least 3 visits between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2016. Patients were not excluded if they also had a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (ICD-9-CM code 696.0; ICD-10-CM code L40.5x). Patients also must have been continuously enrolled for at least 1 year before and 1 year after the index date, which was defined as the date of the third psoriasis diagnosis.

Each patient with psoriasis was assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts: (1) severe psoriasis: patients who received UVB phototherapy, psoralen plus UVA phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, apremilast, etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, efalizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, or ixekizumab during the study period; and (2) mild psoriasis: patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis who did not receive one of these therapies during the study period.

Patients were excluded if they had a history of appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis at any time before the index date. Only patients older than 18 years were included.

Patients with psoriasis were frequency matched (1:5) with healthy patients, also from the KPSC network. Individuals were matched by age, sex, and ethnicity.

Statistical Analysis
Baseline characteristics were described with means and SD for continuous variables as well as percentages for categorical variables. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U Test for continuous variables were used to compare the patients’ characteristics by psoriasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the risk for appendicitis, cholecystitis, or diverticulitis among patients with and without psoriasis and among patients with mild and severe psoriasis. Proportionality assumption was validated using Pearson product moment correlation between the scaled Schoenfeld residuals and log transformed time for each covariate.

Results were presented as crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios (HRs) and adjusted HRs, where confounding factors (ie, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index [BMI], alcohol use, smoking status, income, education, and membership length) were adjusted. All tests were performed with SAS EG 5.1 and R software. P<.05 was considered statistically significant. Results are reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI), when appropriate.

Results

A total of 1,690,214 KPSC patients were eligible for the study; 10,307 (0.6%) met diagnostic and inclusion criteria for the psoriasis cohort. Patients with psoriasis had a significantly higher mean BMI (29.9 vs 28.7; P<.0001) as well as higher mean rates of alcohol use (56% vs 53%; P<.0001) and smoking (47% vs 38%; P<.01) compared to controls. Psoriasis patients had a shorter average duration of membership within the Kaiser network (P=.0001) compared to controls.

A total of 7416 patients met criteria for mild psoriasis and 2891 patients met criteria for severe psoriasis (eTable). Patients with severe psoriasis were significantly younger and had significantly higher mean BMI compared to patients with mild psoriasis (P<.0001 and P=.0001, respectively). No significant difference in rates of alcohol or tobacco use was detected among patients with mild and severe psoriasis.

Diverticulitis
Patients with psoriasis had a significantly greater prevalence of diverticulitis compared to the control cohort (5.1% vs 4.2%; P<.0001). There was no difference in prevalence between the severe psoriasis group and the mild psoriasis group (P=.96), but the time to diagnosis of diverticulitis was shorter in the severe psoriasis group than in the mild psoriasis group (7.2 years vs 7.9 years; P<.0001). Psoriasis patients had an incidence rate of diverticulitis of 6.61 per 1000 patient-years compared to 5.38 per 1000 patient-years in the control group. Psoriasis conferred a higher risk for diverticulitis in both the crude and adjusted models (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35 [P<.001] and HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29; [P<.01], respectively)(Table 3); however, when stratified by disease severity, only patients with severe psoriasis were found to be at higher risk (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61; P<.001 for the adjusted model).

Comment

The objective of this study was to examine the background risks for specific gastrointestinal pathologies in a large cohort of patients with psoriasis compared to the general population. After adjusting for measured confounders, patients with severe psoriasis had a significantly higher risk of diverticulitis compared to the general population. Although more patients with severe psoriasis developed appendicitis or cholecystitis, the difference was not significant.

The pathogenesis of diverticulosis and diverticulitis has been thought to be related to increased intracolonic pressure and decreased dietary fiber intake, leading to formation of diverticula in the colon.¹⁹ Our study did not correct for differences in diet between the 2 groups, making it a possible confounding variable. Studies evaluating dietary habits of psoriatic patients have found that adult males with psoriasis might consume less fiber compared to healthy patients,²⁰ and psoriasis patients also might consume less whole-grain fiber.²¹ Furthermore, fiber deficiency also might affect gut flora, causing low-grade chronic inflammation,¹⁸ which also has been supported by response to anti-inflammatory medications such as mesalazine.²² Given the autoimmune association between psoriasis and IBD, it is possible that psoriasis also might create an environment of chronic inflammation in the gut, predisposing patients with psoriasis to diverticulitis. However, further research is needed to better evaluate this possibility.

Our study also does not address any potential effects on outcomes of specific treatments for psoriasis. Brandl et al²³ found that patients on immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune diseases had longer hospital and intensive care unit stays, higher rates of emergency operations, and higher mortality while hospitalized. Because our results suggest that patients with severe psoriasis, who are therefore more likely to require treatment with an immunomodulator, are at higher risk for diverticulitis, these patients also might be at risk for poorer outcomes.

There is no literature evaluating the relationship between psoriasis and appendicitis. Our study found a slightly lower incidence rate compared to the national trend (9.38 per 10,000 patient-years in the United States in 2008) in both healthy patients and psoriasis patients.²⁴ Of note, this statistic includes children, whereas our study did not, which might in part account for the lower rate. However, Cheluvappa et al²⁵ hypothesized a relationship between appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy at a young age and protection against IBD. They also found that the mechanism for protection involves downregulation of the helper T cell (T_H17) pathway,²⁵ which also has been found to play a role in psoriasis pathogenesis.^26,27 Although our results suggest that the risk for appendicitis is not increased for patients with psoriasis, further research might be able to determine if appendicitis and subsequent appendectomy also can offer protection against development of psoriasis.

We found that patients with severe psoriasis had a higher incidence rate of cholecystitis compared to patients with mild psoriasis. Egeberg et al²⁸ found an increased risk for cholelithiasis among patients with psoriasis, which may contribute to a higher rate of cholecystitis. Although both acute and chronic cholecystitis were incorporated in this study, a Russian study found that chronic cholecystitis may be a predictor of progression of psoriasis.²⁹ Moreover, patients with severe psoriasis had a shorter duration to diagnosis of cholecystitis than patients with mild psoriasis. It is possible that patients with severe psoriasis are in a state of greater chronic inflammation than those with mild psoriasis, and therefore, when combined with other risk factors for cholecystitis, may progress to disease more quickly. Alternatively, this finding could be treatment related, as there have been reported cases of cholecystitis related to etanercept use in patients treated for psoriasis and juvenile polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis.^30,31 The relationship is not yet well defined, however, and further research is necessary to evaluate this association.

Study Strengths
Key strengths of this study include the large sample size and diversity of the patient population. Kaiser Permanente Southern California membership generally is representative of the broader community, making our results fairly generalizable to populations with health insurance. Use of a matched control cohort allows the results to be more specific to the disease of interest, and the population-based design minimizes bias.

Study Limitations
This study has several limitations. Although the cohorts were categorized based on type of treatment received, exact therapies were not specified. As a retrospective study, it is difficult to control for potential confounding variables that are not included in the electronic medical record. The results of this study also demonstrated significantly shorter durations to diagnosis of all 3 conditions, indicating that surveillance bias may be present.

Conclusion

Patients with psoriasis may be at an increased risk for diverticulitis compared to patients without psoriasis, which could be due to the chronic inflammatory state induced by psoriasis. Therefore, it may be beneficial for clinicians to evaluate psoriasis patients for other risk factors for diverticulitis and subsequently provide counseling to these patients to minimize their risk for diverticulitis. Psoriasis patients do not appear to be at an increased risk for appendicitis or cholecystitis compared to controls; however, further research is needed for confirmation.