Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: Circulatory shock is a life-threatening syndrome resulting in multiorgan failure and a high mortality rate. The aim of this consensus is to provide support to the bedside clinician regarding the diagnosis, management and monitoring of shock. METHODS: The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine invited 12 experts to form a Task Force to update a previous consensus (Antonelli et al.: Intensive Care Med 33:575-590, 2007). The same five questions addressed in the earlier consensus were used as the outline for the literature search and review, with the aim of the Task Force to produce statements based on the available literature and evidence. These questions were: (1) What are the epidemiologic and pathophysiologic features of shock in the intensive care unit ? (2) Should we monitor preload and fluid responsiveness in shock ? (3) How and when should we monitor stroke volume or cardiac output in shock ? (4) What markers of the regional and microcirculation can be monitored, and how can cellular function be assessed in shock ? (5) What is the evidence for using hemodynamic monitoring to direct therapy in shock ? Four types of statements were used: definition, recommendation, best practice and statement of fact. RESULTS: Forty-four statements were made. The main new statements include: (1) statements on individualizing blood pressure targets; (2) statements on the assessment and prediction of fluid responsiveness; (3) statements on the use of echocardiography and hemodynamic monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides 44 statements that can be used at the bedside to diagnose, treat and monitor patients with shock

Racial disparities in clinically significant prostate cancer treatment: The potential health information technology offers

Copyright © 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. Black men are more likely to die as a result of prostate cancer than white men, despite effective treatments that improve survival for clinically significant prostate cancer. We undertook this study to identify gaps in prostate cancer care quality, racial disparities in care, and underlying reasons for poorer quality care. Methods We identified all black men and random age-matched white men with Gleason scores $ 7 diagnosed between 2006 and 2013 at two urban hospitals to determine rates of treatment underuse. Underuse was defined as not receiving primary surgery, cryotherapy, or radiotherapy. We then interviewed treating physicians about the reasons for underuse. Results Of 359 black and 282 white men, only 25 (4%) experienced treatment underuse, and 23 (92%) of these were black. Most (78%) cases of underuse were due to system failures, where treatment was recommended but not received; 38% of these men continued receiving care at the hospitals. All men with treatment underuse due to system failures were black. Conclusion Treatment rates of prostate cancer are high. Yet, racial disparities in rates and causes of underuse remain. Only black men experienced system failures, a type of underuse amenable to health information technology-based solutions. Institutions are missing opportunities to use their health information technology capabilities to reduce disparities in cancer care

Liver cancer disparities in New York City: A neighborhood view of risk and harm reduction factors

© 2018 Kamath, Taioli, Egorova, Llovet, Perumalswami, Weiss, Schwartz, Ewala and Bickell. Introduction: Liver cancer is the fastest increasing cancer in the United States and is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in New York City (NYC), with wide disparities among neighborhoods. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to describe liver cancer incidence by neighborhood and examine its association with risk factors. This information can inform preventive and treatment interventions. Materials and methods: Publicly available data were collected on adult NYC residents (n = 6,407,022). Age-adjusted data on liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer came from the New York State Cancer Registry (1) (2007-2011 average annual incidence); and the NYC Vital Statistics Bureau (2015, mortality). Data on liver cancer risk factors (2012-2015) were sourced from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: (1) Community Health Survey, (2) A1C registry, and (3) NYC Health Department Hepatitis surveillance data. They included prevalence of obesity, diabetes, diabetic control, alcohol-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits, hepatitis B and C rates, hepatitis B vaccine coverage, and injecting drug use. Results: Liver cancer incidence in NYC was strongly associated with neighborhood poverty after adjusting for race/ethnicity (β = 0.0217, p = 0.013); and with infection risk scores (β = 0.0389, 95% CI = 0.0088-0.069, p = 0.011), particularly in the poorest neighborhoods (β = 0.1207, 95% CI = 0.0147-0.2267, p = 0.026). Some neighborhoods with high hepatitis rates do not have a proportionate number of hepatitis prevention services. Conclusion: High liver cancer incidence is strongly associated with infection risk factors in NYC. There are gaps in hepatitis prevention services like syringe exchange and vaccination that should be addressed. The role of alcohol and metabolic risk factors on liver cancer in NYC warrants further study

Using linked routinely collected health data to describe prostate cancer treatment in New South Wales, Australia: a validation study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Population-based patterns of care studies are important for monitoring cancer care but conducting them is expensive and resource-intensive. Linkage of routinely collected administrative health data may provide an efficient alternative. Our aim was to determine the accuracy of linked routinely collected administrative data for monitoring prostate cancer care in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The NSW Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study (PCOS), a population-based survey of patterns of care for men aged less than 70 years diagnosed with prostate cancer in NSW, was linked to the NSW Cancer Registry, electronic hospital discharge records and Medicare and Pharmaceutical claims data from Medicare Australia. The main outcome measures were treatment with radical prostatectomy, any radiotherapy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy or androgen deprivation therapy, and cancer staging. PCOS data were considered to represent the true treatment status. The sensitivity and specificity of the administrative data were estimated and relevant patient characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The validation data set comprised 1857 PCOS patients with treatment information linked to Cancer Registry records. Hospital and Medicare claims data combined described treatment more accurately than either one alone. The combined data accurately recorded radical prostatectomy (96% sensitivity) and brachytherapy (93% sensitivity), but not androgen deprivation therapy (76% sensitivity). External beam radiotherapy was rarely captured (5% sensitivity), but this was improved by including Medicare claims for radiation field setting or dosimetry (86% sensitivity). False positive rates were near 0%. Disease stage comparisons were limited by one-third of cases having unknown stage in the Cancer Registry. Administrative data recorded treatment more accurately for cases in urban areas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Cancer Registry and hospital inpatient data accurately captured radical prostatectomy and brachytherapy treatment, but not external beam radiotherapy or disease stage. Medicare claims data substantially improved the accuracy with which all major treatments were recorded. These administrative data combined are valid for population-based studies of some aspects of prostate cancer care.</p

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression

Pediatric appendicitis rupture rate: a national indicator of disparities in healthcare access

BACKGROUND: The U.S. National Healthcare Disparities Report is a recent effort to measure and monitor racial and ethnic disparities in health and healthcare. The Report is a work in progress and includes few indicators specific to children. An indicator worthy of consideration is racial/ethnic differences in the rate of bad outcomes for pediatric acute appendicitis. Bad outcomes for this condition are indicative of poor access to healthcare, which is amenable to social and healthcare policy changes. METHODS: We analyzed the KID Inpatient Database, a nationally representative sample of pediatric hospitalization, to compare rates of appendicitis rupture between white, African American, Hispanic and Asian children. We ran weighted logistic regression models to obtain national estimates of relative odds of rupture rate for the four groups, adjusted for developmental, biological, socioeconomic, health services and hospital factors that might influence disease outcome. RESULTS: Rupture was a much more burdensome outcome than timely surgery and rupture avoidance. Rupture cases had 97% higher hospital charges and 175% longer hospital stays than non-rupture cases on average. These burdens disproportionately affected minority children, who had 24% – 38% higher odds of appendicitis rupture than white children, adjusting for age and gender. These differences were reduced, but remained significant after adjusting for other factors. CONCLUSION: The racial/ethnic disparities in pediatric appendicitis outcome are large and are preventable with timely diagnosis and surgery for all children. Furthermore, estimating this disparity using the KID survey is a relatively straightforward process. Therefore pediatric appendicitis rupture rate is a good candidate for inclusion in the National Healthcare Disparities Report. As with most other health and healthcare disparities, efforts to reduce disparities in income, wealth and access to care will most likely improve the odds of favorable outcome for this condition as well

Intravenous Aviptadil and Remdesivir for Treatment of COVID-19-Associated Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure in the USA (Tesico): A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health