Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is associated with greater risk of 30-day hospital readmission in the United States (U.S.)

Introduction and Objectives: Data about 30-day readmission for patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and their contribution to CLD healthcare burden are sparse. Patterns, diagnoses, timing and predictors of 30-day readmissions for CLD from 2010-2017 were assessed. Materials and Methods: Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) is an all-payer, all-ages, longitudinal administrative database, representing 35 million discharges in the US population yearly. We identified unique patients discharged with CLD including hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV), alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) from 2010 through 2017. Survey-weight adjusted multivariable analyses were used. Results: From 2010 to 2017, the 30-day readmission rate for CLD decreased from 18.4% to 17.8% (p=.008), while increasing for NAFLD from 17.0% to 19. 9% (p<.001). Of 125,019 patients discharged with CLD (mean age 57.4 years, male 59.0%) in 2017, the most common liver disease was HCV (29.2%), followed by ALD (23.5%), NAFLD (17.5%), and HBV (4.3%). Readmission rates were 20.5% for ALD, 19.9% for NAFLD, 16.8% for HCV and 16.7% for HBV. Compared to other liver diseases, patients with NAFLD had significantly higher risk of 30-day readmission in clinical comorbidities adjusted model (Hazard ratio [HR]=1.08 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.13]). In addition to ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, higher number of coexisting comorbidities, comorbidities associated with higher risk of 30-day readmission included cirrhosis for NALFD and HCV; acute kidney injury for NAFLD, HCV and ALD; HCC for HCV, and peritonitis for ALD. Cirrhosis and cirrhosis-related complications were the most common reasons for 30-day readmission, followed by sepsis. However, a large proportion of patients (43.7% for NAFLD; 28.4% for HCV, 39.0% for HBV, and 29.1% for ALD) were readmitted for extrahepatic reasons. Approximately 20% of those discharged with CLD were readmitted within 30 days but the majority of readmissions occurred within 15 days of discharge (62.8% for NAFLD, 63.7% for HCV, 74.3% for HBV, and 72.9% for ALD). Among readmitted patients, patients with NAFLD or HCV readmitted ≤30-day had significantly higher costs and risk of in-hospital mortality (NAFLD +5.69% change [95% confidence interval, 2.54%-8.93%] and odds ratio (OR)=1.58 [1.28-1.95]; HCV +9.85% change [95%CI:6.96%-12.82%] and OR=1.31, 1.08-1.59). Conclusions: Early readmissions for CLD are prevalent causing economic and clinical burden to the US healthcare system, especially NAFLD readmissions. Closer surveillance and attention to both liver and extrahepatic medical conditions immediately after CLD discharge is encouraged

Exogenous progesterone for smoking cessation in men and women: a pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

Background and Aims: In some clinical studies men and women have been found to differ in their ability to quit smoking, perhaps as a result of progesterone. The primary aim of this study was to provide a preliminary test of whether progesterone (PRO), compared with placebo (PBO), was more effective for smoking cessation in men and women. Design: Pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. Setting: Minneapolis/St Paul metro area, Minnesota, USA. Participants: A total of 216 participants were randomized, including 113 men (18-60 years; PRO = 56, PBO = 57) and 103 women (18-50 years, pre-menopausal with self-reported regular menstrual cycles; PRO = 51, PBO = 52). Intervention: Participants were randomized (1 : 1 within sex group) to either PRO (200 mg twice daily) or PBO. Participants were assigned a quit date approximately 7 days after starting medication (luteal phase for women) and were followed for 12 weeks to assess relapse. Measurements The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at week 4. Secondary outcomes included 7-day PPA at weeks 8 and 12, prolonged abstinence, continuous abstinence, urine cotinine < 50 ng/ml, expired carbon monoxide <= 5 parts per million (p.p.m.) and days to relapse. Findings: There was a significant difference in 7-day PPA at week 4 among women [PRO: 18 (35.3%) versus PBO: 9 (17.3%), odds ratio (OR) = 2.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04, 6.54, P = 0.041], but not among men [PRO: 13 (23.2%) versus PBO: 12 (21.1%), 1.13 (0.47, 2.76), P = 0.782]. There was some evidence that PRO delayed relapse in women (days to relapse; PRO: 20.5 +/- 29.6 versus PBO: 14.3 +/- 26.8, P = 0.03) but not in men (PRO: 13.4 +/- 25.9 versus PBO: 13.3 +/- 23.8, P = 0.69). Conclusions: Oral micronized progesterone may aid smoking cessation in women.Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) [K12HD055887]; NCATS NIH HHSUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR000114, UL1TR000114]; NICHD NIH HHSUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) [K12 HD055887]; NIDA NIH HHSUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [P50DA033942, P50 DA033942]12 month embargo; first published: 06 May 2019This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8

Advancing the scholarship and practice of stakeholder engagement in working landscapes: a co-produced research agenda

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes