Dataset Information

Adherence to guidelines across different specialties to prevent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Substantial numbers of patients are now receiving either immunosuppressive therapies or chemotherapy. There are significant risks in such patients of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections, with higher associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this quality improvement project was to determine how effective 5 different specialties were in assessing and mitigating risks of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies. METHODS:This was a single centre audit where records of patients attending clinics providing immunosuppressive therapies were reviewed for the following: evidence of screening for blood-borne virus [BBV] infections, varicella and measles immunity, latent/active TB or hypogammaglobulinaemia, and whether appropriate vaccines had been advised or various infection risks discussed. These assessments were audited against both national and international guidelines, or a cross-specialty consensus guideline where specific recommendations were lacking. Two sub-populations were also analysed separately: patients receiving more potent immunosuppression and black and minority ethnic [BME] patients,. RESULTS:For the 204 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, BBV, varicella/measles and latent TB screening was inconsistent, as was advice for vaccinations, with few areas complying with specialty or consensus guidelines. Less than 10% of patients in one specialty were tested for HIV. In BME patients screening for HIV [60%], measles [0%] and varicella [40%] immunity and latent [30%] or active [20%] TB was low. Only 38% of patients receiving potent immunosuppression received Pneumocystis prophylaxis, with 3 of 4 specialties providing less than 15% of patients in this category with prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS:Compliance with guidelines to mitigate risks of infection from immunosuppressive therapies was either inconsistent or poor for most specialties. New approaches to highlight such risks and assist appropriate pre-immunosuppression screening are needed.

SUBMITTER: Chadwick DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7238578 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adherence to guidelines across different specialties to prevent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies.

Chadwick David R DR Sayeed Laila L Rose Matthew M Budd Emily E Mohammed Mo M Harrison Sarah S Azad Jaskiran J Maddox Jamie J

BMC infectious diseases 20200520 1

<h4>Background</h4>Substantial numbers of patients are now receiving either immunosuppressive therapies or chemotherapy. There are significant risks in such patients of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infections, with higher associated morbidity and mortality. The aim of this quality improvement project was to determine how effective 5 different specialties were in assessing and mitigating risks of developing opportunistic infections or re-activation of latent infe ...[more]

PMID: 32434480

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND::Patients with immune-mediated diseases on immunosuppressive therapies have more infectious episodes than healthy individuals, yet vaccination practices by physicians for this patient population remain suboptimal. OBJECTIVES::To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines in individuals exposed to immunosuppressive therapies and provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations. METHODS::A literature search for vaccination safety and efficacy in patients on immunosuppressive therapies (2009-2017) was conducted. Results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS::Several immunosuppressive therapies attenuate vaccine response. Thus, vaccines should be administered before treatment whenever feasible. Inactivated vaccines can be administered without treatment discontinuation. Similarly, evidence suggests that the live zoster vaccine is safe and effective while on select immunosuppressive therapy, although use of the subunit vaccine is preferred. Caution regarding other live vaccines is warranted. Drug pharmacokinetics, duration of vaccine-induced viremia, and immune response kinetics should be considered to determine appropriate timing of vaccination and treatment (re)initiation. Infants exposed to immunosuppressive therapies through breastmilk can usually be immunized according to local guidelines. Intrauterine exposure to immunosuppressive agents is not a contraindication for inactivated vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines scheduled for infants and children ?12 months of age, including measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, can be safely administered as sufficient time has elapsed for drug clearance. CONCLUSIONS::Immunosuppressive agents may attenuate vaccine responses, but protective benefit is generally maintained. While these recommendations are evidence based, they do not replace clinical judgment, and decisions regarding vaccination must carefully assess the risks, benefits, and circumstances of individual patients.

Project description:Endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) are promising strategies for the treatment of obesity. However, there is still great variability in its effectiveness in weight loss. Thus, we investigated whether adherence to healthy lifestyle habits is a significant determinant of weight loss effectiveness among patients undergoing EBTs. Additionally, the role of eating behaviors and psychological traits in the effectiveness of weight loss was studied. A cohort of 361 participants (81.4% women; age 41.8 ± 9.5 years; BMI 37.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2) was followed for 1 year after EBT. Anthropometric parameters, adherence to healthy lifestyle habits, emotional eating, and psychological traits (anxiety and depression) were evaluated. General linear models were used to compare outcome variables according to weight loss effectiveness groups (poor vs. good weight-loss-responders). Additionally, a hierarchical linear regression model was used to determine whether adherence to healthy lifestyle habits, emotional eating, or psychological traits were significant predictors of excess weight loss (%EWL). One year after EBT, weight loss differed significantly between good and poor weight-loss-responders (67.5% EWL [95% CI: 64.2, 70.8] vs. 28.2% EWL [95% CI: 25.5, 30.9], p < 0.001). Participants who adhered to good lifestyle habits had 4.37 more odds [95% CI: 2.19, 8.88] of being good weight-loss-responders. We also observed that eating four to five meals/day and practicing muscle-strengthening activities >2 times/week were the two lifestyle habits that most significantly determined weight loss response. Furthermore, our results revealed that while adherence to healthy lifestyle habits was a significant determinant of %EWL 3, 6, and 12 months after EBT (p < 0.001), emotional eating was a significant determinant of %EWL only 3 and 6 months after the intervention (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively). Regarding psychological traits, we observed that neither anxiety nor depression were significant determinants of %EWL. Our results revealed that adherence to healthy lifestyle habits is a significant determinant for weight loss effectiveness among patients with obesity undergoing EBT. These findings highlight the importance of implementing an adequate nutritional intervention program, especially since patients who adhere to good lifestyle habits are able to achieve a weight loss that would be comparable with bariatric surgery.

Project description:BackgroundImmunosuppressive therapies proposed for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management may predispose to secondary infections. We evaluated the association of immunosuppressive therapies with bloodstream-infections (BSIs) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis was an institutional review board-approved retrospective, multicenter, cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 over a 5-month period. We obtained clinical, microbiologic and laboratory data from electronic medical records. Propensity-score-matching helped create balanced exposure groups. Demographic characteristics were compared across outcome groups (BSI/no BSI) using two-sample t-test and Chi-Square test for continuous and categorical variables respectively, while immunosuppressive therapy use was compared using McNemar's test. Conditional logistic regression helped assess the association between immunosuppressive therapies and BSIs.Results13,007 patients were originally included, with propensity-score-matching producing a sample of 6,520 patients. 3.74% and 3.97% were diagnosed with clinically significant BSIs in the original and propensity-score-matched populations respectively. COVID-19 patients with BSIs had significantly longer hospitalizations, higher intensive care unit admission and mortality rates compared to those without BSIs. On univariable analysis, combinations of corticosteroids/anakinra [odds-ratio (OR) 2.00, 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) 1.05-3.80, P value.0342] and corticosteroids/tocilizumab [OR 2.13, 95% C.I. 1.16-3.94, P value .0155] were significantly associated with BSIs. On multivariable analysis (adjusting for confounders), combination corticosteroids/tocilizumab were significantly associated with any BSI [OR 1.97, 95% C.I. 1.04-3.73, P value.0386] and with bacterial BSIs [OR 2.13, 95% C.I. 1.12-4.05, p-value 0.0217].ConclusionsCombination immunosuppressive therapies were significantly associated with BSI occurrence in COVID-19 patients; their use warrants increased BSI surveillance. Further studies are needed to establish their causative role.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic type 1 patients are often advised to use dose adjustment guidelines to calculate their doses of insulin. Conventional methods of measuring patients' adherence are not applicable to these cases, because insulin doses are not determined in advance. We propose a method and a number of indicators to measure patients' conformance to these insulin dosing guidelines.MethodsWe used a database of logbooks of type 1 diabetic patients who participated in a summer camp. Patients used a guideline to calculate the doses of insulin lispro and glargine four times a day, and registered their injected doses in the database. We implemented the guideline in a computer system to calculate recommended doses. We then compared injected and recommended doses by using five indicators that we designed for this purpose: absolute agreement (AA): the two doses are the same; relative agreement (RA): there is a slight difference between them; extreme disagreement (ED): the administered and recommended doses are merely opposite; Under-treatment (UT) and over-treatment (OT): the injected dose is not enough or too high, respectively. We used weighted linear regression model to study the evolution of these indicators over time.ResultsWe analyzed 1656 insulin doses injected by 28 patients during a three weeks camp. Overall indicator rates were AA = 45%, RA = 30%, ED = 2%, UT = 26% and OT = 30%. The highest rate of absolute agreement is obtained for insulin glargine (AA = 70%). One patient with alarming behavior (AA = 29%, RA = 24% and ED = 8%) was detected. The monitoring of these indicators over time revealed a crescendo curve of adherence rate which fitted well in a weighted linear model (slope = 0.85, significance = 0.002). This shows an improvement in the quality of therapeutic decision-making of patients during the camp.ConclusionOur method allowed the measurement of patients' adherence to their insulin adjustment guidelines. The indicators that we introduced were capable of providing quantitative data on the quality of patients' decision-making for the studied population as a whole, for each individual patient, for all injections, and for each time of injection separately. They can be implemented in monitoring systems to detect non-adherent patients.

Project description:BackgroundExploring the cancer risks of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can help detect, evaluate, and treat malignancies at an early stage for these patients. Thus, a comprehensive analysis was conducted to determine the cancer risk of RA patients using different types of DMARDs and analyze their relationship with tumor mutational burdens (TMBs) reflecting immunogenicity.MethodsA thorough search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Medline was conducted up to 20 August 2022. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were constructed with a random-effect model to determine risks for different types of malignancies in comparison with the general population. We also analyzed the correlation between SIRs and TMBs using linear regression (LR).ResultsFrom a total of 22 studies, data on 371,311 RA patients receiving different types of DMARDs, 36 kinds of malignancies, and four regions were available. Overall cancer risks were 1.15 (SIR 1.15; 1.09-1.22; p < 0.001) and 0.91 (SIR 0.91; 0.72-1.14; p = 0.402) in RA populations using conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), respectively. RA patients taking csDMARDs displayed a 1.77-fold lung cancer risk (SIR 1.77; 1.50-2.09; p < 0.001), a 2.15-fold lymphoma risk (SIR 2.15; 1.78-2.59; p < 0.001), and a 1.72-fold melanoma risk (SIR 1.72; 1.26-2.36; p = 0.001). Correlation coefficients between TMBs and SIRs were 0.22 and 0.29 from those taking csDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively.ConclusionWe demonstrated a cancer risk spectrum of RA populations using DMARDs. Additionally, TMBs were not associated with elevated cancer risks in RA patients following immunosuppressive therapy, which confirmed that iatrogenic immunosuppression might not increase cancer risks in patients with RA.InterpretationChanges were similar in cancer risk after different immunosuppressive treatments, and there was a lack of correlation between SIRs and TMBs. These suggest that we should look for causes of increased risks from the RA disease itself, rather than using different types of DMARDs.

Project description:ImportanceHypertension and carotid stenosis are both risk factors for stroke, but the presence of carotid stenosis might dampen enthusiasm for tight control of hypertension because of concerns for hypoperfusion.ObjectiveTo determine the extent to which there are opportunities to potentially improve pharmacotherapy for hypertension in patients known to have asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis.DesignWe examined anti-hypertensive medication prescription and adherence to evidence-based hypertension treatment guidelines in a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data of patients enrolled in a clinical trial.SettingThe Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2) is a multicenter prospective randomized open blinded end-point clinical trial of intensive medical management with or without revascularization by endarterectomy or stenting for asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis.Participants1479 participants (38.6% female; mean age 69.8 years) from 132 clinical centers enrolled in the CREST-2 trial as of April 6, 2020 who were taking ≥1 antihypertensive drug at baseline.ExposuresPharmacotherapy for hypertension.Main outcomeAdherence to evidence-based guidelines for treating hypertension.ResultsOf 1458 participants with complete data, 26% were on one, 31% on 2, and 43% on ≥3 antihypertensive medications at trial entry. Thirty-two percent of participants were prescribed thiazide; 74%, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB); 38%, calcium channel blocker (CCB); 56%, a beta blocker; 11%, loop diuretic; and 27%, other. Of those prescribed a single antihypertensive medication, the proportion prescribed thiazide was 5%; ACEI or ARB, 55%, and CCB, 11%. The prevalence of guideline-adherent regimens was 34% (95% CI, 31-36%).Conclusions and relevanceIn a diverse cohort with severe carotid disease and hypertension, non-adherence to hypertension guidelines was common. All preferred classes of antihypertensive drug were under-prescribed. Using staged iterative guideline-based care for hypertension, CREST-2 will characterize drug tolerance and stroke rates under these conditions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT02089217.

Dataset Information

Adherence to guidelines across different specialties to prevent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies.

Publications

Adherence to guidelines across different specialties to prevent infections in patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets