Appendix 4: Search strategies

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all meta-analyses that included outpatient sub-analyses or network meta-analyses with medications treatment comparisons in order to study the clinical benefits of these deimplemented medications in the outpatient setting

Outpatient Medications Deimplemented by the AAP Bronchiolitis Guidelines: An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE: To systematically perform an umbrella review all meta-analyses that included outpatient sub-analyses or network meta-analyses with medication treatment comparisons to study the clinical benefits of these deimplemented medications in the outpatient setting

Nasal leech infestation causing persistent epistaxis

Foreign bodies in the nasal cavity are commonly encountered as a cause of epistaxis; however, nasal leech infestation as a cause of unilateral persistent epistaxis is very rare. Examination of nasal cavity revealed fleshy material in the left nostril, which was identified as leech. The leech was removed with the help of an artery forceps following irrigation of the left nostril with normal saline and adopting wait-and-watch policy. In developing countries, leech infestation as a cause of epistaxis should be suspected in patients with lower socioeconomic status or in those living in rural areas who give history of drinking polluted water from, or bathing in, stagnant ponds and puddles

Study on the effect of metformin in patients of metastatic renal cell cancer with diabetes receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy

Objective: The primary objective of our study was to study the effect of metformin in patients of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) and diabetes who are on treatment with frontline therapy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The effect of therapy was described in terms of overall survival and progression free survival. Comparisons were made between group of patients receiving metformin versus group of patients receiving insulin in diabetic patients of metastatic renal cancer on frontline therapy. Exploratory analyses were also done comparing non-diabetic patients of metastatic renal cell cancer receiving frontline therapy compared to diabetic patients of metastatic renal cell cancer receiving metformin therapy. Methods: The study design is a retrospective case series to elaborate the response rate of frontline therapy in combination with metformin for mRCC patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The cohort was selected from a database, which was generated for assessing the effect of tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy associated hypertension in metastatic renal cell cancer at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients who had been started on frontline therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma from all ethnic and racial backgrounds were selected for the study. The exclusion criteria would be of patients who took frontline therapy for less than 3 months or were lost to follow-up. Our exposure variable was treatment with metformin, which comprised of patients who took metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes at any time of diagnosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The outcomes assessed were last available follow-up or date of death for the overall survival and date of progression of disease from their radiological reports for time to progression. The response rates were compared by covariates that are known to be strongly associated with renal cell cancer. Results: For our primary analyses between the insulin and metformin group, there were 82 patients, out of which 50 took insulin therapy and 32 took metformin therapy for type 2 diabetes. For our exploratory analysis, we compared 32 diabetic patients on metformin to 146 non-diabetic patients, not on metformin. Baseline characteristics were compared among the population. The time from the start of treatment until the date of progression of renal cell cancer and date of death or last follow-up were estimated for survival analysis. In our primary analyses, there was a significant difference in the time to progression of patients receiving metformin therapy vs insulin therapy, which was also seen in our exploratory analyses. The median time to progression in primary analyses was 1259 days (95% CI: 659-1832 days) in patients on metformin therapy compared to 540 days (95% CI: 350-894) in patients who were receiving insulin therapy (p=0.024). The median time to progression in exploratory analyses was 1259 days (95% CI: 659-1832 days) in patients on metformin therapy compared to 279 days (95% CI: 202-372 days) in non-diabetic group (p-value \u3c0.0001). The median overall survival was 1004 days in metformin group (95% CI: 761-1212 days) compared to 816 days (95%CI: 558-1405 days) in insulin group (p-value\u3c0.91). For the exploratory analyses, the median overall survival was 1004 days in metformin group (95% CI: 761-1212 days) compared to 766 days (95%CI: 649-965 days) in the non-diabetic group (p-value\u3c0.78). Metformin was observed to increase the progression free survival in both the primary and exploratory analyses (HR=0.52 in metformin Vs insulin group and HR=0.36 in metformin Vs non-diabetic group, respectively). Conclusion: In laboratory studies and a few clinical studies metformin has been proven to have dual benefits in patients suffering from cancer and type 2-diabetes via its action on the mammalian target of Rapamycin pathway and effect in decreasing blood sugar by increasing the sensitivity of the insulin receptors to insulin. Several studies in breast cancer patients have documented a beneficial effect (quantified by pathological remission of cancer) of metformin use in patients taking treatment for breast cancer therapy. Combination of metformin therapy in patients taking frontline therapy for renal cell cancer may provide a significant benefit in prolonging the overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer and diabetes

Abstracts for the 36th annual emergencies in medicine conference

The 36th Annual Emergencies in Medicine Conference was held at the Hyatt Centric Hotel in Park City, Utah, from February 25 to March 1, 2018. The conference is designed by Emergency Medicine physicians to be short, engaging, and informative. Conference involved a series of fast-paced 30-min lectures from international leaders in Emergency Medicine about cutting-edge research. The following were the abstracts that were presented at the conference. There was a competition for the best abstract, determined by a vote of all the conference attendees, for which the winner received the title of “2018 Best Emergencies in Medicine Abstract,” and a cash award of $500. This year the award went to “Stethoscope Cleaning Practices: The Dirty 3rd Hand of Modern Medicine.

Impact of a Focused Online Teaching Module on Airway Intervention: Can an Online Teaching Module Enable Knowledge Acquisition and Increased Confidence in Airway Management?

OBJECTIVE Teaching procedural skills via digital platforms is challenging. There is a paucity of literature on the feasibility of implementing an online asynchronous web-based learning (WBL) module for endotracheal intubation in Emergency Medicine. Learners completed a pre-test questionnaire prior to reviewing the module to assess their current knowledge. After completion of the online module, another assessment on airway management competency was completed. The purpose of our pilot study was to determine the feasibility of implementing an online airway module and investigate knowledge acquisition among learners who completed it. Additionally, we compared the relationship between pre-module confidence and knowledge between various training levels of those who completed the module. METHODS The study was IRB exempt. We conducted a quasi-experimental pre- and post-test study, where learners took a multiple-choice question-based test before watching content module, and after completion of modules, they went on to complete post-test questions. All responses were collected using Google survey and the data were collected over a period of 6 months. We performed descriptive statistics for the pre- and post-module. Frequency distribution was used for data summarization and chi-square test was used to assess the difference between variables. RESULTS We received 366 responses in the pre-test module and 105 in post-test module. Responses were summarized into 5 broad categories which assessed knowledge about airway technique, anatomical landmarks, formulas for selecting blade size, tube size, depth of tube, and case-based scenarios. All questions showed a higher percentage of correct answers in the post-assessment compared to the pre-assessment. CONCLUSION The results demonstrated that this WBL airway module resulted in significant knowledge acquisition, as well as increased confidence when approaching airway management. The study demonstrated that a WBL airway module is a feasible method of asynchronous education for healthcare providers in all levels of training

Aseptic Stethoscope Barriers Prevent C difficile Transmission In Vitro

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile-contaminated stethoscope diaphragms remained aseptic by the placement of an aseptic diaphragm barrier.MethodsOn November 1, 2019, fresh cultures of C difficile were diluted to 107 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL and used to inoculate 16 stethoscope diaphragms; 8 had an aseptic diaphragm barrier applied and 8 served as nonbarrier controls. Contaminated stethoscopes were anaerobically incubated, then swabbed at 15 and 30 minutes, 2 and 4 hours, and 1, 2, 3, and 7 days after inoculation and subsequently plated onto blood, chocolate, and cycloserine-cefoxitin fructose agar. Plates were incubated for 48 hours and on November 9, 2019, the resulting colonies were manually counted. Statistical analyses (RStudio, version 1.0.153) used analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference.ResultsOverall, mean colony count was 33 CFU on stethoscopes without barriers vs zero on those with barriers (P≤.05). Growth was greatest at 48 hours, with colony counts as high as 160 CFU. The presence of the barrier resulted in no growth in 100% of stethoscope diaphragms for up to 1 week.ConclusionWe found that stethoscope diaphragm barriers provide an aseptic patient contact point, thus reducing the potential for transmission of C difficile during the physical examination. In critical care environments, in which many hospitals use acoustically inferior disposable stethoscopes, the option of a disposable aseptic stethoscope barrier may allow high-quality auscultation while reducing the potential for pathogen transmission

816. Effectiveness of Aseptic Stethoscope Barriers in Allowing Clean Contact for Clostridioides Difficile-Contaminated Stethoscopes

Abstract Background Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), such as C. difficile colitis, pose a significant health risk. C. difficile is a spore-forming gram-positive anaerobic bacillus capable of surviving on various surfaces. While a strong emphasis has been placed on hand-washing and environmental cleaning with bleach products to limit the spread of C. difficile, stethoscope contamination has been poorly addressed. Studies have demonstrated that the stethoscope diaphragm harbors similar levels and type of contamination to one’s hands. While a non-alcohol-based solution is recommended for stethoscope hygiene in settings at risk for C. difficile, the use of an aseptic stethoscope diaphragm barrier has not been evaluated. Our purpose is to evaluate whether C. difficile-contaminated stethoscope diaphragms remain aseptic by the placement of an aseptic diaphragm barrier. Methods Fresh cultures of C. difficile were diluted to 107 CFU/mL. After inoculating 16 stethoscope diaphragms with C. difficile, 8 had an aseptic diaphragm barrier applied, and 8 served as non-barrier controls. Contaminated stethoscopes were placed in an anaerobic incubator, then swabbed at 15 and 30 minutes, 2 and 4 hours, and 1, 2, 3, and 7 days after inoculation, and subsequently plated onto blood, chocolate, and cycloserine-cefoxitin fructose agar. These plates were incubated for 48 hours, and resulting colonies were manually counted. Statistical analysis was performed (RStudio version 1.0.153) by ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) with post-hoc Tukey HSD (Honestly Significant Difference). Results Overall, mean colony count was 33 CFU on the 8 stethoscope diaphragms without barriers, vs zero on those with barriers (p≤ 0.05). Growth rates were greatest at 48 hours, with colony counts as high as 160. While stethoscope diaphragms without barriers had increasing rates of C. difficile culture growth, the presence of the barrier resulted in no growth in 100% of stethoscope diaphragms for up to 1 week after contamination (Figure 1). C. difficile colony counts from stethoscope diaphragms at time-points up to 1 week. Conclusion Aseptic barriers allow C. difficile-contaminated stethoscope diaphragms to remain without bacterial growth for up to a week. Disposable aseptic diaphragm barriers may be effective in preventing the spread of C. difficile. Disclosures William F. Peacock, MD, AseptiScope Inc. (Board Member