Design details for overdose education and take-home naloxone kits: Codesign with family medicine, emergency department, addictions medicine and community.

INTRODUCTION: Overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) programmes equip and train people who are likely to witness an opioid overdose to respond with effective first aid interventions. Despite OEND expansion across North America, overdose rates are increasing, raising questions about how to improve OEND programmes. We conducted an iterative series of codesign stakeholder workshops to develop a prototype for take-home naloxone (THN)-kit (i.e., two doses of intranasal naloxone and training on how to administer it). METHODS: We recruited people who use opioids, frontline healthcare providers and public health representatives to participate in codesign workshops covering questions related to THN-kit prototypes, training on how to use it, and implementation, including refinement of design artefacts using personas and journey maps. Completed over 9 months, the workshops were audio-recorded and transcribed with visible results of the workshops (i.e., sticky notes, sketches) archived. We used thematic analyses of these materials to identify design requirements for THN-kits and training. RESULTS: We facilitated 13 codesign workshops to identify and address gaps in existing opioid overdose education training and THN-kits and emphasize timely response and stigma in future THN-kit design. Using an iterative process, we created 15 prototypes, 3 candidate prototypes and a final prototype THN-kit from the synthesis of the codesign workshops. CONCLUSION: The final prototype is available for a variety of implementation and evaluation processes. The THN-kit offers an integrated solution combining ultra-brief training animation and physical packaging of nasal naloxone to be distributed in family practice clinics, emergency departments, addiction medicine clinics and community settings. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The codesign process was deliberately structured to involve community members (the public), with multiple opportunities for public contribution. In addition, patient/public participation was a principle for the management and structuring of the research team.

Large-Scale Telemedicine Implementation for Outpatient Clinicians: Results From a Pandemic-Adapted Learning Collaborative.

Learning collaboratives are seldom used outside of health care quality improvement. We describe a condensed, 10-week learning collaborative ("Telemedicine Hack") that facilitated telemedicine implementation for outpatient clinicians early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Live attendance averaged 1688 participants per session. Of 1005 baseline survey respondents, 57% were clinicians with one-third identifying as from a racial/ethnic minoritized group. Practice characteristics included primary care (71%), rural settings (51%), and community health centers (28%). Of three surveys, a high of 438 (81%) of 540 clinicians had billed ≥1 video-based telemedicine visit. Our learning collaborative "sprint" is a promising model for scaling knowledge during emergencies and addressing health inequities.

Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical and economic burden of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is significant. Recurrent CDI management has emerged as a major challenge with suboptimal response to standard therapy. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been used as a treatment to reconstitute the normal microbial homeostasis and break the cycle of antibiotic agents that may further disrupt the microbiome. Given the lack of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and limitations in previous systematic reviews, we aimed to conduct a systematic review with robust methods to determine the efficacy and safety profile of FMT in CDI. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (1946-March 2012), EMBASE (1974-March 2012) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012). The search strategy was not limited by language. Abstract data were excluded and only completed studies that underwent the full, rigorous peer-review process were included. Studies that used FMT via any delivery modality for laboratory or endoscopically proven CDI with clinical resolution as primary outcome were included. A sample size of 10 or more patients was a further criterion. Elements of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination checklist and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence quality assessment for case series checklist were employed to determine study quality. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Both unweighted pooled resolution rates (UPR) and weighted pooled resolution rates (WPR) were calculated with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall studies, as well as predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 273 CDI patients treated with FMT were identified; no RCTs were found as none have been published. Two-hundred and forty-five out of 273 patients experienced clinical resolution (UPR 89.7%; WPR 89.1% (95% CI 84 to 93%)). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity between studies (Cochran Q test P=0.13, I(2)=33.7%). A priori subgroup analysis suggested that lower gastrointestinal FMT delivery (UPR 91.4%; WPR 91.2% (95% CI 86 to 95%)) led to a trend towards higher clinical resolution rates than the upper gastrointestinal route (UPR 82.3%; WPR 80.6% (95% CI 69-90%)) (proportion difference of WPR was 10.6% (95% CI -0.6 to 22%)). No difference in clinical outcomes was detected between anonymous vs. patient selected donors. There were no reported adverse events associated with FMT and follow-up was variable from weeks to years. CONCLUSIONS: FMT holds considerable promise as a therapy for recurrent CDI but well-designed, RCTs and long-term follow-up registries are still required. These are needed to identify the right patient, efficacy and safety profile of FMT before this approach can be widely advocated.

Mixed methods feasibility study for the surviving opioid overdose with naloxone education and resuscitation (SOONER) trial.

AIM: We plan to conduct a randomised clinical trial among people likely to witness opioid overdose to compare the educational effectiveness of point-of-care naloxone distribution with best-available care, by observing participants' resuscitation skills in a simulated overdose. This mixed methods feasibility study aims to assess the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures. METHODS: We implemented candidate-driven recruitment strategies with verbal consent and destigmatizing study materials in a family practice, emergency department, and addictions service. People ≥16 years of age who are likely to witness overdose were randomized to point-of-care naloxone distribution or referral to an existing program. We evaluated participant skills as a responder to a simulated overdose 3-14 days post-recruitment. Retention strategies included flexible scheduling, reminders, cash compensation and refreshments. The primary outcome was recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the ability to recruit 28 eligible participants in 28 days, with <50% attrition at the outcome simulation. Acceptability of study procedures and motivations for participation were assessed in a semi-structured interview. RESULTS: We enrolled 30 participants over 24 days, and retained 21 participants (70%, 95%CI 56.7-100). The most common motivation for participation was a desire to serve the community or loved ones in distress. Participants reported that study procedures were acceptable and that the outcome simulation provided a supportive and affirming environment. CONCLUSION: The planned trial is ready for implementation. Recruitment and retention is feasible and study processes are acceptable for people who are likely to witness overdose. (Registration: NCT03821649).

International Consensus on Guiding Recommendations for Management of Patients with Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs Induced Gastropathy-ICON-G.

INTRODUCTION: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the most commonly used medications worldwide, are frequently associated with gastrointestinal adverse events. Primary care physicians often face the challenge of achieving adequate pain relief with NSAIDs, while keeping their adverse events to a minimum. This is especially true when long-term use of NSAIDs is required such as in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. To help primary care physicians deal with such challenges more effectively, a panel of expert gastroenterologists came together with the aim of developing practice recommendations. METHODS: A modified 'Delphi' process was used to reach consensus and develop practice recommendations. Twelve gastroenterologists from nine countries provided their expert inputs to formulate the recommendations. These recommendations were carefully developed taking into account existing literature, current practices, and expert opinion of the panelists. RESULTS: The expert panel developed a total of fifteen practice recommendations. Following are the key recommendations: NSAIDs should be prescribed only when necessary; before prescribing NSAIDs, associated modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors should be considered; H. pylori infection should be considered and treated before initiating NSAIDs; patients should be properly educated regarding NSAIDs use; patients who need to be on long-term NSAIDs should be prescribed a gastroprotective agent, preferably a proton pump inhibitor and these patients should be closely monitored for any untoward adverse events. CONCLUSION/CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These practice recommendations will serve as an important tool for primary care physicians and will guide them in making appropriate therapeutic choices for their patients.How to cite this article: Hunt R, Lazebnik LB, Marakhouski YC, Manuc M, Ramesh GN, Aye KS, Bordin DS, Bakulina NV, Iskakov BS, Khamraev AA, Stepanov YM, Ally R, Garg A. International Consensus on Guiding Recommendations for Management of Patients with Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Induced Gastropathy-ICON-G. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol, 2018;8(2):148-160.

Effects of gastroprotectant drugs for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its complications: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class. FINDINGS: We identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0-210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9-2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25-0·29; p<0·0001), symptomatic ulcers (0·25, 0·22-0·29; p<0·0001), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0·40, 0·32-0·50; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (0·85, 0·69-1·04; p=0·11). Larger proportional reductions in upper gastrointestinal bleeding were observed for PPIs than for other gastroprotectant drugs (PPIs 0·21, 99% CI 0·12-0·36; prostaglandin analogues 0·63, 0·35-1·12; H2RAs 0·49, 0·30-0·80; phet=0·0005). Gastroprotectant drugs were effective in preventing bleeding irrespective of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (phet=0·56). In healing trials, gastroprotectants increased endoscopic ulcer healing (3·49, 95% CI 3·28-3·72; p<0·0001), with PPIs more effective (5·22, 99% CI 4·00-6·80) than prostaglandin analogues (2·27, 1·91-2·70) and H2RAs (3·80, 3·44-4·20; phet<0·0001). In trials among patients with acute bleeding, gastroprotectants reduced further bleeding (OR 0·68, 95% CI 0·60-0·78; p<0·0001), blood transfusion (0·75, 0·65-0·88; p=0·0003), further endoscopic intervention (0·56, 0·45-0·70; p<0·0001), and surgery (0·72, 0·61-0·84; p<0·0001), but did not significantly reduce mortality (OR 0·90, 0·72-1·11; p=0·31). PPIs had larger protective effects than did H2RAs for further bleeding (phet=0·0107) and blood transfusion (phet=0·0130). INTERPRETATION: Gastroprotectants, in particular PPIs, reduce the risk of peptic ulcer disease and its complications and promote healing of peptic ulcers in a wide range of clinical circumstances. However, this meta-analysis might have overestimated the benefits owing to small study bias. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

The National Ebola Training and Education Center: Preparing the United States for Ebola and Other Special Pathogens.

The National Ebola Training and Education Center (NETEC) was established in 2015 in response to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa. The US Department of Health and Human Services office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sought to increase the competency of healthcare and public health workers, as well as the capability of healthcare facilities in the United States, to deliver safe, efficient, and effective care to patients infected with Ebola and other special pathogens nationwide. NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue, Emory University, and the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Nebraska Medicine were awarded this cooperative agreement, based in part on their experience in safely and successfully evaluating and treating patients with Ebola virus disease in the United States. In 2016, NETEC received a supplemental award to expand on 3 initial primary tasks: (1) develop metrics and conduct peer review assessments; (2) develop and provide educational materials, resources, and tools, including exercise design templates; (3) provide expert training and technical assistance; and, to add a fourth task, create a special pathogens clinical research network.

Do patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia respond differently to Helicobacter pylori eradication treatments from those with peptic ulcer disease? A systematic review.

AIM: It is controversial whether patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD) respond differently to Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) eradication treatment than those with peptic ulcer disease (PUD). To review the evidence for any difference in H pylori eradication rates between PUD and NUD patients. METHODS: A literature search for full articles and meeting abstracts to July 2004 was conducted. We included studies evaluating the efficacy of a proton pump inhibitor (P) or ranitidine bismuth citrate (RBC) plus two antibiotics of clarithromycin (C), amoxicillin (A), metronidazole (M), or P-based quadruple therapies for eradicating the infection. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the criteria. No significant difference in eradication rates was found between PUD and NUD patients when treated with 7-d RBCCA, 10-d PCA or P-based quadruple therapies. When the 7-d PCA was used, the pooled H pylori eradication rate was 82.1% (431/525) and 72.6% (448/617) for PUD and NUD patients, respectively, yielding a RR of 1.15 (95%CI 1.01-1.29). However, the statistically significant difference was seen only in meeting abstracts, but not in full publications. CONCLUSION: There is no convincing evidence to suggest that NUD patients respond to H pylori eradication treatments differently from those with PUD, although a trend exists with the 7-d PCA therapy.

Etiology of dyspepsia: implications for empirical therapy.

Dyspepsia describes a symptom complex thought to arise in the upper gastrointestinal tract and includes, in addition to epigastric pain or discomfort, symptoms such as heartburn, acid regurgitation, excessive burping or belching, a feeling of slow digestion, early satiety, nausea and bloating. Based on the evidence that heartburn cannot be reliably distinguished from other dyspeptic symptoms, the Rome definition appears to be too narrow and restrictive. It is particularly ill suited to the management of uninvestigated dyspepsia at the level of primary care. In patients presenting with uninvestigated dyspepsia, a symptom benefit is associated with a 'test and treat' approach for Helicobacter pylori infection. A substantial proportion of those who do not benefit prove to have esophagitis on endoscopy. In those with functional dyspepsia, the benefits of H pylori eradication, if any, appear to be modest. Hence, a 'symptom and treat' acid-suppression trial with proton pump inhibitors, and a 'test and treat' strategy for H pylori are two acceptable empirical therapies for patients with univestigated dyspepsia.

Barrett's esophagus: proton pump inhibitors and chemoprevention II.

The following on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and chemoprevention in relation to Barrett's esophagus includes commentaries on 48-h pH monitoring, pH-impedence, bile acid testing, dyspepsia, long/short segment Barrett's esophagus, nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), functional heartburn, dual-release delivery PPIs, immediate-release PPIs, long-term PPI use, prokinetic agents, obesity, baclofen, nocturnal acid breakthrough, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and new PPIs.

Myths and facts in the use of anti-inflammatory drugs.

BACKGROUND: Because of the prominence of pain-related conditions and the growing complexities of clinical management we aimed to explore and attempt to dispel the several myths that surround these serious therapeutic issues. AIMS: We aimed to provide a careful analysis of the evidence and draw factually based guidance for physicians who manage the broad range of patients with pain. METHODS: Current myths were identified based on the authors' clinical, scientific, and academic experience. Each contributor addressed specific topics and made his own selection of primary references and systematic reviews by searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases (1990-2008) as well as in the proceedings of the major digestive and rheumatology meetings. The writing and references provided by each contributor were collectively analyzed and discussed by all authors during several meetings until the final manuscript was prepared and approved. RESULTS: Seven major 'historical' myths that may perpetuate habits and beliefs in clinical practice were identified. Each of them was thoroughly examined and dispelled, drawing conclusions that should help guide physicians to better manage patients with pain. CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief must be considered a human right, and patients with osteoarthritis pain should be treated appropriately with analgesic or/and anti-inflammatory drugs. The risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (t-NSAIDs) is present from the first dose (with both short-term and long-term use), and strategies to prevent GI complications should be considered regardless of the duration of therapy. Compared with t-NSAIDs, coxib use is associated with a small but significant reduction of dyspepsia. While protecting the stomach, proton pump inhibitors do not prevent NSAID-induced intestinal damage. To this end, coxib therapy could be the preferred option, although further randomized studies are needed. A substantial number of patients who need NSAIDs are also taking low-dose aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis. From a GI perspective, the combination of aspirin plus a coxib provides a preferred option compared with aspirin plus a t-NSAID, for patients at high GI risk. As the incidence of renovascular adverse effects with t-NSAIDs and coxibs is similar, blood pressure should be monitored and managed appropriately in patients taking these drugs, although they should be avoided in those with severe congestive heart failure. Due to increased cardiovascular risk, which is dependent on the dose, duration of therapy, and base-line cardiovascular risk, both t-NSAIDs and coxibs should be used with caution in patients with underlying prothrombotic states and/or concomitant cardiovascular risk factors.

Postexposure interventions to prevent infection with HBV, HCV, or HIV, and tetanus in people wounded during bombings and other mass casualty events--United States, 2008: recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness.

People wounded during bombings or other events resulting in mass casualties or in conjunction with the resulting emergency response may be exposed to blood, body fluids, or tissue from other injured people and thus be at risk for bloodborne infections such as hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, or tetanus. This report adapts existing general recommendations on the use of immunization and postexposure prophylaxis for tetanus and for occupational and nonoccupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens to the specific situation of a mass casualty event. Decisions regarding the implementation of prophylaxis are complex, and drawing parallels from existing guidelines is difficult. For any prophylactic intervention to be implemented effectively, guidance must be simple, straightforward, and logistically undemanding. Critical review during development of this guidance was provided by representatives of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and representatives of the acute injury care, trauma, and emergency response medical communities participating in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Terrorism Injuries: Information, Dissemination and Exchange project. There recommendations contained in this report represent the consensus of US federal public health officials and reflect the experience and input of public health officials at all levels of government and the acute injury response community.

Prevention of anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal damage: benefits and risks of therapeutic strategies.

Patients who take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may develop serious gastrointestinal (GI) side effects in both the upper and lower GI tract. Those at risk should be considered for prevention with misoprostol, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or COX-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) therapy. A coxib or an NSAID+PPI combination is considered to have comparable GI safety profiles, but evidence from direct comparison is limited. PPIs are effective in the prevention of upper GI events in endoscopy trials and in a few, small, outcome trials in patients at risk. Coxibs have been evaluated in endoscopic ulcer studies and clinical outcome trials, and shown to significantly reduce the risk of upper GI ulcer and complications. Moreover, unlike PPIs, coxibs significantly reduce toxicity in the lower GI tract compared with NSAIDs. Coxibs and possibly some NSAIDs also increase the risk of developing serious cardiovascular events, an effect which may depend on the drug, dose and duration of therapy. It is not known whether concomitant low-dose aspirin use, which occurs in more than 20% of patients, will reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, although concomitant aspirin increases the risk of developing serious GI events in patients taking either an NSAID or a coxib. Such patients may require additional PPI co-therapy. Current prevention strategies with an NSAID+PPI, misoprostol or a coxib must be considered in the individual patient with GI and cardiovascular risk factors. A PPI+coxib is indicated in those at highest risk (e.g. previous ulcer bleeding). PPI therapy must be considered for the treatment and prevention of NSAID-induced dyspepsia.

Eliminating errors in emergency medical services: realities and recommendations.

Errors in health care can have serious consequences, not only for patients but for society as a whole, given the considerable national expenditures required to address these errors. Because of the number of patients treated and the acuity of emergency situations, eliminating errors should be a priority in emergency medical services (EMS) systems. In a recent report, the Institute of Medicine called for improvements in patient safety, which it defined as freedom from accidental injury. Recent efforts have focused on integrating EMS systems into error analyses of the total health care system. However, EMS systems must take the initiative in addressing their own major error-prone areas using the best and most current data available. Unfortunately, addressing the problem of medical errors in EMS systems still suffers from a paucity of data, owing to a lack of organized, funded programs backed by legislation and dedicated government coordination. We recommend that EMS medical directors consider specific error audits to decrease sources of errors and to be better able to identify EMS providers who would benefit from retraining. Error audits might first be focused on the following potentially serious errors: equipment malfunction, failure to check oxygen saturation, failure to immobilize the patient, use of incorrect protocol or algorithm, failure to check glucose levels, failure to recognize patient deterioration, failure to detect misplaced endotracheal tubes, and use of wrong drug or drug dose.