The impact of obesity and timely antiviral administration on severe influenza outcomes among hospitalized adults.

Obesity was identified as a risk factor for severe influenza during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1)pandemic, but evidence of this association has been mixed since. Post-pandemic antiviral treatment guidelines may have increased antiviral treatment among obese individuals. A prospective study of adults hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza in Detroit, Michigan in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 was conducted. Patient information was collected from interviews and medical chart abstraction. Obese (BMI ≥ 30) and non-obese (BMI < 30) participants were compared. Late antiviral treatment (>2 days from symptom onset), obesity (30 ≤ BMI < 40), and morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40) were evaluated as predictors of lower respiratory tract disease (LRD), ICU admission, and length of stay (LOS) using logistic regression and inverse probability weighted models. Forty-eight participants were included in the study after exclusions and all patients received antiviral treatment. Participants who were obese were significantly more likely to have a cough and to take steroids than non-obese participants, and had a shorter time from hospital admission to antiviral treatment (median time from admission to treatment of 0 days for obese patients and 1 day for non-obese patients [P = 0.001]). In all models, late antiviral treatment was associated with increased odds of LRD (OR: 3.9 [1.1,15.9] in fully adjusted model). After adjustment for treatment timing, the odds of ICU admission (OR: 6.4 [0.8,58.2] to 7.9 [0.9, 87.1]) and LRD (OR: 3.3 [0.5, 23.5] to 4.0 [0.6, 35.0]) associated with morbid obesity increased. Obese individuals were treated with antivirals earlier than others. Late antiviral treatment was associated with severe influenza in the hospital.

Epidemiology of severe influenza outcomes among adult patients with obesity in Detroit, Michigan, 2011.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of obesity on influenza disease severity. Individuals with obesity were more likely to have lower pulmonary disease manifestations [OR=1·97 (95% CI 1·05, 3·69), P=0·03] and to be admitted to an inpatient ward [OR=2·93 (95% CI 1·50, 5·71), P=0·002] when compared with non-obese individuals. Among admitted individuals, persons with obesity were more likely to require a lengthy hospital stay [OR=3·86 (95% CI 1·03, 14·42), P=0·045]. Five of the six deaths in study subjects occurred in persons with obesity.

Predictors, barriers, and facilitators of lipid-lowering medication use among African Americans in a primary care clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Hypercholesterolemic African Americans are less likely than white Americans to be taking lipid-lowering medications, yet they suffer disproportionately from coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Through medical record abstraction and focus groups with patients and physicians, we sought a better understanding of the predictors, barriers, and facilitators to lipid-lowering medication use in a Detroit primary care clinic. Stepwise regression analysis included 634 African American patients with abnormal cholesterol values (n = 575) or currently prescribed a lipid-lowering medication (n = 59). Focus group transcripts were analyzed with a framework approach. RESULTS: Overall 174 (30.3%) of hypercholesterolemic African Americans were prescribed a lipid-lowering medication. Patients with hypertension or CHD were significantly more likely to have a lipid-lowering medication prescription than those without, adjusted prevalence ratio 2.56 (95% CI, 1.76-3.74) for hypertension and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.45-2.00) for CHD. Focus groups revealed 2 barriers to lipid-lowering medication use named by both physicians (n = 12) and patients (n = 23): cost and forgetting to take medication, often because of lack of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and patients suggested better education by physicians and at the community level to improve lipid-lowering medication use. Simple and direct patient-physician discussions emphasizing long-term benefits are recommended.

Utility of monitoring mycophenolic acid in solid organ transplant patients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether monitoring concentrations of mycophenolic acid (MPA) in the serum or plasma of persons who receive a solid organ transplant will result in a lower incidence of transplant rejections and adverse events versus no monitoring of MPA. To investigate whether the incidence of rejection or adverse events differs according to MPA dose or frequency, type of MPA, the form of MPA monitored, the method of MPA monitoring, or sample characteristics. To assess whether monitoring is cost-effective versus no monitoring. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from their dates of inception (in brackets) until October 2007: MEDLINE (1966); BIOSIS Previews (1976); EMBASE (1980); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1995); and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1995). REVIEW METHODS: Studies identified from the data sources went through two levels of screening (i.e., title and abstract, full text) and the ones that passed were abstracted. Criteria for abstraction included publication in the English language, study design (i.e., randomized controlled trial [RCT], observational study with comparison group, case series), and patient receipt of allograft solid organ transplant. Additionally, any form of MPA had to be measured at least once in the plasma or serum using any method of measurement (e.g., AUC0-12, C0). Furthermore, these measures had to be linked to a health outcome (e.g., transplant rejection). Certain biomarkers (e.g., serum creatinine, glomular filtration rate) and all adverse events were also considered health outcomes. RESULTS: The published evidence on MPA monitoring is inconclusive. Direct, head-to-head comparison of monitoring versus no monitoring is limited to one RCT in adult, kidney transplant patients. Inferences about monitoring can be made from some observational studies, although the evidence is equivocal for MPA dose and dose frequency, nonexistent for type of MPA, inconclusive for form of MPA monitored or method of monitoring, and nonexistent for cost-effectiveness. Some studies suggest gender and concomitant use of calcineurin inhibitors will affect pharmacokinetic parameters, but the impact of these findings has not been assessed in relation to monitoring versus no monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The state of knowledge about therapeutic drug monitoring of MPA in solid organ transplants is still in its infancy. Until there is more evidence on the utility of routine MPA monitoring in solid organ transplant recipients, patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders (e.g., public and private insurers) will have to decide on a case by case basis whether the possible but uncertain benefits are worth the extra time and expense of monitoring.

A systematic review of heparin to treat burn injury.

This systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence for using heparin to treat burn injury. The following databases were searched for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and BIOSIS. Additional searches involved the reference lists of included studies, the "grey " literature (eg, government reports), and consultations with experts to obtain unpublished manuscripts. Included studies were summarized descriptively and in tabular form, and assessed for methodological quality. A metaanalysis was conducted to obtain a summary estimate for the association between heparin use and postburn mortality. Nine studies were abstracted and included in the review. Five studies contained adult and pediatric patients, one contained adults only, and three contained pediatric patients only. Burn etiologies included flame, scald, thermal, or smoke inhalation. Heparin administration was done topically, subcutaneously, intravenously, or via aerosol. Heparin was reported to have a beneficial impact on mortality, graft and wound healing, and pain control. For mortality, the overall estimate (relative risk) of heparin's effect was 0.32 (95% confidence interval = 0.18-0.57). Heparin's reported benefits may be severely biased because the abstracted studies were beset by poor methodological quality (eg, inadequate definitions of treatment and outcome, no control of confounding). Given poor study quality, there is no strong evidence to indicate that heparin can improve clinical outcomes in the treatment of burn injury. Further research is needed to assess the clinical utility of using heparin in the treatment of burn injury.

The uses of heparin to treat burn injury.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for using heparin in the treatment of burn injury or the complications of burn injury in adults and children. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966-current), EMBASE (1980-current), Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) (1982-current), The Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials (1995-current), Web of Science (1976-current), and BIOSIS (1976-current). Additional data sources included the U.S. and European Patent Offices, technical experts, the partner organization, and reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: Studies identified from the data sources went through two levels of title and abstract screening. Passing studies advanced to full text screening. Studies that met the full text screening criteria were abstracted. Criteria for abstraction included publication in any language, human patients of any age, and burns of any type, grade, or total body surface area. All formulations of heparin, and all application methods (e.g., topical, subcutaneous), were eligible for inclusion in the report. Abstracted studies required a comparison group. Outcomes of interest included mortality, pain, length of stay in hospital, thrombosis and emboli, psychiatric adjustment, and adverse effects (e.g., bleeding). RESULTS: Nineteen articles from 18 unique studies were abstracted and included in this report. In these articles, there were multiple uses of heparin to treat burns (e.g., wound healing, inhalation injury, sepsis, pain). However, the overall quality of the articles was weak. Examples of weakness included unclear or inappropriate treatment allocation, no blinding, no control of confounding, poorly defined burn characteristics (e.g., thickness), unclear duration of treatment, incomplete description of heparin treatment, and use of inadequately described or invalid outcome measures. Overall, the evidence from these weak articles was insufficient to determine whether the effectiveness of heparin to treat burn injury was different from the effectiveness of other treatments, or whether treatment effectiveness varied according to (a) the method of applying heparin to (b) burn etiology. Four studies mentioned contraindications to using heparin to treat burns. These contraindications were bleeding diathesis, bleeding history, active bleeding or associated trauma with potential bleeding, active intestinal ulcer, thrombocytopenia, liver disease, renal disorders, or allergy to heparin. CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence in the 19 abstracted articles to suggest that heparin should be used in the treatment of burn injury on account of its non-anticoagulant properties.