Clostridium difficile rates in asymptomatic and symptomatic hospitalized patients using nucleic acid testing.

BACKGROUND: The Clostridium difficile rate in symptomatic patients represents both those with C. difficile infection (CDI) and those with colonization. To predict the extent of CDI overdiagnosis, we compared the asymptomatic colonization rate to the symptomatic positivity rate in hospitalized patients using nucleic acid testing. METHODS: Between July 2014 and April 2015, formed stool samples were collected from asymptomatic patients after admission to 3 hospital wards at the Stanford Hospital. Stool samples from symptomatic patients with suspected CDI in the same wards were collected for testing per provider order. The GeneXpert C. difficile tcdB polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was performed on all stool samples and PCR cycle threshold was used as a measure of genomic equivalents. Chart review was performed to obtain clinical history and medication exposure. RESULTS: We found an asymptomatic C. difficile carriage rate of 11.8% (43/365) (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5-15.1%) and a positivity rate in symptomatic patients of 15.4% (54/351) (95% CI, 11.6-19.2%; P=0.19). The median PCR cycle thresholds was not significantly different between asymptomatic carriers and symptomatic positives (29.5 versus 27.3; P=0.07). Among asymptomatic patients, 11.6% (5/43) of carriers and 8.4% (27/322; P=0.56) of noncarriers subsequently became symptomatic CDI suspects within the same hospitalization. Single and multivariate analysis did not identify any demographic or clinical factors as being significantly associated with C. difficile carriage. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic C. difficile carriage rate was similar to symptomatic positivity rate. This suggests the majority of PCR-positive results in symptomatic patients are likely due to C. difficile colonization. Disease-specific biomarkers are needed to accurately diagnose patients with C. difficile disease.

Efficacy and harms of the hypoglycemic agent pramlintide in diabetes mellitus.

PURPOSE: We conducted a study to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and harms of pramlintide as adjunct therapy in adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched multiple bibliographic databases to January 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, and other sources to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling inclusion criteria. Syntheses were qualitative because data were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three published RCTs in type 1 diabetes and 4 in type 2 disease fulfilled inclusion criteria. All trials were conducted with adults, and none was longer than 52 weeks. In type 1 diabetes with intensive insulin therapy, pramlintide was as effective as placebo in lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels in one trial. Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo in patients using conventional insulin therapy, with a between-group difference in HbA(1c) levels of 0.2% to 0.3% (2 studies). In patients with type 2 diabetes, pramlintide was more effective at reducing HbA(1c) levels than placebo when added to flexibly dosed glargine (without prandial insulin) and when added to fixed-dose insulin therapies, with or without oral hypoglycemic agents (between-group differences in HbA(1c) were approximately 0.4%). Weight loss was observed with pramlintide in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, whereas placebo-treated patients tended to gain weight. Pramlintide-treated patients experienced more frequent nausea and severe hypoglycemia compared with patients treated with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Pramlintide was somewhat more effective than placebo as adjunct therapy for improving HbA(1c) levels and weight in adults with type 1 diabetes on conventional insulin therapy, or type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control with their current therapies, with between-group differences in HbA(1c) levels in the range of 0.2% to 0.4%. Further research is needed to determine pramlintide's durability of hypoglycemic effect, as well as effects on patient-reported outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and long-term harms.

Prediction of adverse outcomes in children with sickle cell anemia: a study of the Dallas Newborn Cohort.

The Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease reported that dactylitis, severe anemia, and leukocytosis in very young children with sickle cell disease (SCD) increased the risk of later adverse outcomes, including death, stroke, frequent pain, and recurrent acute chest syndrome. This model has not been validated in other cohorts. We evaluated its performance in the Dallas Newborn Cohort, a newborn inception cohort of children with SCD. We studied 168 children (55% male, 97% sickle cell anemia) with a mean follow-up of 7.1 years who provided 1188 patient-years of observation. Of the 23 (13.7%) subjects who experienced adverse events, 2 (1.2%) died, 14 (8.3%) had a stroke, 4 (2.4%) had frequent pain, and 3 (1.8%) had recurrent acute chest syndrome. No relationship existed between early clinical predictors and later adverse outcomes, with the possible exception of leukocyte count. Most subjects who experienced adverse events were predicted to be at low risk for those events. No subject who was predicted to be at high risk actually experienced an adverse outcome. The sensitivity of the model did not rise above 20% until specificity fell below 60%. We suggest that this model not be used as a criterion to initiate early interventions for SCD.

Prognostic significance of early vaso-occlusive complications in children with sickle cell anemia.

Sickle cell anemia (SS) is highly phenotypically variable, and early predictors of outcome could guide clinical care. To determine whether early vaso-occlusive complications predicted subsequent adverse outcomes in the Dallas Newborn Cohort, we studied all members with SS or sickle-beta0-thalassemia who presented in their first year of life and had 5 years or more of follow-up. We defined 3 potential early predictors: hospitalizations in the first 3 years of life for (1) painful events other than dactylitis, (2) dactylitis, and (3) acute chest syndrome (ACS). We studied the associations of these predictors with the following late adverse outcomes (occurring after the third birthday): death, first overt stroke, use of disease-modifying therapy, and hospitalizations for pain events and ACS. None of the early events predicted death or stroke. Early pain and ACS both predicted a modest, temporary increase in the number of later painful episodes, but early ACS strongly increased the odds of more frequent ACS throughout childhood. Dactylitis had limited utility as a predictor. Although we still lack a useful prognostic framework for young children with SS, those who experience early ACS might be candidates for higher risk interventions to mitigate or cure their disease.

Warfarin and royal jelly interaction.

An 87-year-old African-American man came to the internal medicine clinic for a routine anticoagulation management visit. He had no complaints. His medical history was significant for stage IV-A follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. His long-term drug therapy consisted of warfarin, felodopine, lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide, controlled-release diltiazem, potassium chloride, and oxycodone. He reported adherence with his prescribed drugs and denied taking any over-the-counter or herbal products. Overall, the patient's drug therapy had been consistent during the preceding 3 months, no significant changes had occurred in his clinical status, and no significant changes had been noted in his diet; his international normalized ratio (INR) had ranged from 1.9-2.4 (therapeutic range 2-3). He denied tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and recent travel. Four weeks later, the patient came to the emergency department with hematuria. He denied dysuria, taking more than the prescribed amount of warfarin, any changes in his diet, taking any over-the-counter or herbal products, and any other bleeding. On admission to the hospital, his INR was 6.88, which increased to 7.29 during his hospital stay. On further investigation, the patient admitted that he had started taking an herbal supplement, royal jelly, 1 week earlier. When asked specifically about the ingredients in the supplement, he stated that royal jelly was the only component. Relative to the patient's denial of any other changes in his condition or drug regimen, the most probable explanation for his elevated INR and subsequent bleeding is a possible interaction between royal jelly and warfarin. To our knowledge, no case reports concerning royal jelly and warfarin taken concomitantly have been reported. Clinicians should be proactive and repeatedly provide education regarding the potential dangers of dietary supplements taken with conventional drugs.