Medication Deprescribing in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Prospective Controlled Quality Improvement Study.

Rationale & Objective: Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), including some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs are associated with an increased risk of medication harm (eg, falls, fractures, hospitalization). Deprescribing is a solution that proposes to stop, reduce, or switch medications to a safer alternative. Although deprescribing pairs well with routine medication reviews, it can be complex and time-consuming. Whether clinical decision support improves the process and increases deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis is unknown. This study aimed to test the efficacy of the clinical decision support software MedSafer at increasing deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis. Study Design: Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control. Setting & Participants: Patients prescribed ≥5 medications in 2 outpatient dialysis units in Montréal, Canada. Exposures: Patient health data from the electronic medical record were input into the MedSafer web-based portal to generate reports listing candidate PIMs for deprescribing. At the time of a planned biannual medication review (usual care), treating nephrologists in the intervention unit additionally received deprescribing reports, and patients received EMPOWER brochures containing safety information on PIMs they were prescribed. In the control unit, patients received usual care alone. Analytical Approach: The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed was compared between the intervention and control units following a planned medication review to determine the effect of using MedSafer. The absolute risk difference with 95% CI and number needed to treat were calculated. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed. Secondary outcomes include the reduction in the mean number of prescribed drugs and PIMs from baseline. Results: In total, 195 patients were included (127, control unit; 68, intervention unit); the mean age was 64.8 ± 15.9 (SD), and 36.9% were women. The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed in the control unit was 3.1% (4/127) vs 39.7% (27/68) in the intervention unit (absolute risk difference, 36.6%; 95% CI, 24.5%-48.6%; P < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 3). Limitations: This was a single-center nonrandomized study with a type 1 error risk. Deprescribing durability was not assessed, and the study was not powered to reduce adverse drug events. Conclusions: Deprescribing clinical decision support and patient EMPOWER brochures provided during medication reviews could be an effective and scalable intervention to address PIMs in the dialysis population. A confirmatory randomized controlled trial is needed.

Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications, some of which are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs can increase a patient's pill burden and are associated with an increased risk of harm (some examples include falls, fractures, and hospitalization). Deprescribing is a proposed solution that aims to highlight medications that can be stopped, reduced, or switched to a safer option, under supervision of a health care provider. We aimed to determine if a quality improvement intervention in the dialysis unit could increase deprescribing compared to usual care. The study took place in 2 outpatient hemodialysis units where usual care involves nurses and nephrologists performing medication reviews twice a year. The intervention was a deprescribing report that was generated with the help of a software tool called MedSafer, along with brochures for patients with information on PIMs they were taking. In the intervention unit, we increased the number of patients who had a medication safely deprescribed by 36.6% more than on the control unit. Although the study was small, a future larger study in dialysis patients might show that a computer software such as MedSafer can prevent harmful complications from taking too many medications.

Clinical Outcomes and Management of NAAT-Positive/Toxin-Negative Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standalone nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are frequently used to diagnose Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), although they may be unable to distinguish colonization from disease. A 2-stage algorithm pairing NAATs with toxin immunoassays (Toxin) may improve specificity. We evaluated clinical outcomes of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ versus NAAT+/Toxin- and treated versus untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception to April 1, 2023 for articles comparing CDI outcomes among symptomatic patients tested by NAAT and Toxin tests. The risk differences (RD) of all-cause mortality and CDI recurrence were computed by random effects meta-analysis between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ and NAAT+/Toxin-, as well as between patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- and treated or untreated. RESULTS: Twenty-six observational studies comprising 12 737 patients were included. The 30-day all-cause mortality was not significantly different between those who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (8.4%) and NAAT+/Toxin- (6.7%) (RD = 0.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -.67, 1.49). Recurrence at 60 days was significantly higher among patients who were NAAT+/Toxin+ (19.8%) versus NAAT+/Toxin- (11.0%) (RD = 7.65%, 95% CI = 4.60, 10.71). Among treated compared to untreated NAAT+/Toxin- cases, the all-cause 30-day mortalities were 5.0% and 12.7%, respectively (RD = -7.45%, 95% CI = -12.29, -2.60), but 60-day recurrence was not significantly different (11.6% vs 7.0%, respectively; RD = 5.25%, 95% CI -1.71, 12.22). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients who were NAAT+/Toxin- was associated with reduced all-cause mortality but not recurrence. Although subject to the inherent limitations of observational studies, these results suggest that some patients who are NAAT+/Toxin- may benefit from treatment.

Evaluation of Oseltamivir Used to Prevent Hospitalization in Outpatients With Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients. Data Sources: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs. Results: Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.

Diagnostic yield of CT head in delirium and altered mental status-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: CT head is commonly performed in the setting of delirium and altered mental status (AMS), with variable yield. We aimed to evaluate the yield of CT head in hospitalized patients with delirium and/or AMS across a variety of clinical settings and identify factors associated with abnormal imaging. METHODS: We included studies in adult hospitalized patients, admitted to the emergency department (ED) and inpatient medical unit (grouped together) or the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients had a diagnosis of delirium/AMS and underwent a CT head that was classified as abnormal or not. We searched Medline, Embase and other databases (informed by PRISMA guidelines) from inception until November 11, 2021. Studies that were exclusively performed in patients with trauma or a fall were excluded. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed; the pooled proportion of abnormal CTs was estimated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was determined via the I2 statistic. Factors associated with an abnormal CT head were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were included for analysis. The overall yield of CT head in the inpatient/ED was 13% (95% CI: 10.2%-15.9%) and in ICU was 17.4% (95% CI: 10%-26.3%), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 96% and 98% respectively). Heterogeneity was partly explained after accounting for study region, publication year, and representativeness of the target population. Yield of CT head diminished after year 2000 (19.8% vs. 11.1%) and varied widely depending on geographical region (8.4%-25.9%). The presence of focal neurological deficits was a consistent factor that increased yield. CONCLUSION: Use of CT head to diagnose the etiology of delirium and AMS varied widely and yield has declined. Guidelines and clinical decision support tools could increase the appropriate use of CT head in the diagnostic etiology of delirium/AMS.

Observational versus randomized controlled trials to inform antibiotic treatment durations: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing shorter and longer antibiotic treatment durations are increasingly common. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an ideal methodological approach to study antibiotic treatment durations; however, these trials can be logistically and financially challenging to conduct. OBJECTIVES: In this narrative review, we sought to compare the strengths and limitations of observational study data with those of RCT data in evaluating antibiotic treatment durations. We used uncomplicated Gram-negative bacteraemia as an illustrative case example because several published RCTs and observational studies have been conducted in similar patient populations. SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for articles comparing treatment durations for gram-negative bacteremia from inception to June 9th, 2022. We included studies reporting on all-cause mortality and/or relapse at day 28-30. Data comparing short- versus long-course therapy were pooled by Bayesian random effects meta-analyses to assess the odds ratios (OR) of all-cause mortality and relapse at 30 days, stratified by study design. Parameters were summarized with median and 95% highest-density credible intervals (CrI). Posterior probabilities of OR > 1.0 were estimated. Observational studies were further examined to determine if and how they addressed potential sources of bias. CONTENT: We identified 1671 unique records and included 10 studies (seven observational and three RCTs). With respect to 30-day mortality, the Bayesian posterior probability that a longer course of therapy was better (i.e. OR >1.0) was 42% in RCTs (OR, 0.94; 95% CrI, 0.51-1.68) and 91% in observational studies (OR, 1.25; 95% CrI, 0.88-1.73). No observational study fully addressed all potential sources of bias. IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of our findings, we discuss future directions for antibiotic treatment duration trials, including approaches to limit sources of bias in observation data and novel trial designs.

Revisiting the Evidence Base for Modern-Day Practice of the Treatment of Toxoplasmic Encephalitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) is an opportunistic infection of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or other causes of immunosuppression. Guideline-recommended treatments for TE are pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine (P-S) or pyrimethamine and clindamycin (P-C); however, a substantial price increase has limited access to pyrimethamine. Consequently, some centers have transitioned to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), an inexpensive alternative treatment. We aimed to review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of pyrimethamine-containing therapies vs TMP-SMX. METHODS: We searched for and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of TE treatments, regardless of HIV status. Data for each therapy were pooled by meta-analysis to assess the proportions of patients who experienced clinical and radiologic responses to treatment, all-cause mortality, and discontinuation due to toxicity. Sensitivity analyses limited to RCTs directly compared therapies. RESULTS: We identified 6 RCTs/dose-escalation studies and 26 single-arm/observational studies. Identified studies included only persons with HIV, and most predated modern antiretroviral treatment. Pooled proportions of clinical and radiologic response and mortality were not significantly different between TMP-SMX and pyrimethamine-containing regimens (P > .05). Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was significantly lower in TMP-SMX (7.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-11.4; I2 = 0.0%) vs P-S (30.5%; 95% CI, 27.1-34.2; I2 = 0.0%; P < .01) or P-C (13.7%; 95% CI, 9.8-18.8; I2 = 32.0%; P = .031). These results were consistent in analyses restricted to RCT data. CONCLUSIONS: TMP-SMX appears to be as effective and safer than pyrimethamine-containing regimens for TE. These findings support modern RCTs comparing TMP-SMX to pyrimethamine-based therapies and a revisiting of the guidelines.

Fluvoxamine for Outpatient Management of COVID-19 to Prevent Hospitalization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Widely available and affordable options for the outpatient management of COVID-19 are needed, particularly for therapies that prevent hospitalization. Objective: To perform a meta-analysis of the available randomized clinical trial evidence for fluvoxamine in the outpatient management of COVID-19. Data Sources: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Study Selection: Studies with completed outpatient trials with available results that compared fluvoxamine with placebo were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed and study details in terms of inclusion criteria, trial demographics, and the prespecified outcome of all-cause hospitalization were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and a bayesian random effects meta-analysis with different estimates of prior probability was conducted: a weakly neutral prior (50% chance of efficacy with 95% CI for risk ratio [RR] between 0.5 and 2.0) and a moderately optimistic prior (85% chance of efficacy). A frequentist random-effects meta-analysis was conducted as a senstivity analysis, and the results were contextualized by estimating the probability of any association (RR ≤ 1) and moderate association (RR ≤ 0.9) with reduced hospitalization. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause hospitalization. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials and included 2196 participants. The RRs for hospitalization were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.08) for the bayesian weakly neutral prior, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the bayesian moderately optimistic prior, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97) for the frequentist analysis. Depending on the scenario, the probability of any association with reduced hospitalization ranged from 94.1% to 98.6%, and the probability of moderate association ranged from 81.6% to 91.8%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 3 trials, under a variety of assumptions, fluvoxamine showed a high probability of being associated with reduced hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19. Ongoing randomized trials are important to evaluate alternative doses, explore the effectiveness in vaccinated patients, and provide further refinement to these estimates. Meanwhile, fluvoxamine could be recommended as a management option, particularly in resource-limited settings or for individuals without access to SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy or direct antivirals.