Caring for Patients With Severe and Enduring Eating Disorders (SEED): Certification, Harm Reduction, Palliative Care, and the Question of Futility.

Anorexia nervosa is a serious mental illness with a high mortality rate. The body image distortion inherent to this disorder and the impaired judgment and cognition due to malnutrition frequently result in patients refusing treatment. Treatment is most effective if patients are treated early in the course of their illness and undergo a full course of treatment. Involuntary treatment may therefore be both life-saving and critical to recovery. Between April 2012 and March 2016, 109 patients (5.2% of patients admitted to the Eating Recovery Center in Denver, CO) were certified, 39% of whom were transferred from the ACUTE Center for Eating Disorders at Denver Health Medical Center. Of these 109 certified patients, 31% successfully completed treatment, and 42% returned for a further episode of care; 24% of the certifications were terminated as involuntary treatment was not found to be helpful. Conclusions supported by these data are that patients with anorexia nervosa who are the most medically ill often require involuntary treatment. In addition, although many patients who are certified successfully complete treatment, involuntary treatment is not helpful approximately 25% of the time. Many of the patients for whom certification is ineffective are those who suffer from a lifetime of illness that is severe and enduring. Patients with severe and enduring eating disorders (SEED) typically undergo cyclical weight restoration and weight loss. Many of these patients question the value of serial treatments, especially when they have few (if any) illness-free intervals. Patients, families, and treating physicians often wish to explore other models of care, including harm reduction and palliative care. In addition, patients with SEED may also contemplate whether a compassionate death would be better than an ongoing lifetime of suffering. In this review, we outline arguments for and against the concept of futility in SEED, and explore whether (or when) patients are competent to make the decision to die.

Impact of prescription size on statin adherence and cholesterol levels.

BACKGROUND: Therapy with 3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl Co-enzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) improve outcomes in a broad spectrum of patients with hyperlipidemia. However, effective therapy requires ongoing medication adherence; restrictive pharmacy policies may represent a barrier to successful adherence, particularly among vulnerable patients. In this study we sought to assess the relationship between the quantity of statin dispensed by the pharmacy with patient adherence and total cholesterol. METHODS: We analyzed a cohort of 3,386 patients receiving more than one fill of statin medications through an integrated, inner-city health care system between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2002. Our measure of adherence was days of drug acquisition divided by days in the study for each patient, with adequate adherence defined as > or = 80%. Log-binomial regression was used to determine the relative risk of various factors, including prescription size, on adherence. We also assessed the relationship between adherence and total cholesterol using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: After controlling for age, gender, race, co-payment, comorbidities, and insurance status, patients who obtained a majority of fills as 60-day supply compared with 30-day supply were more likely to be adherent to their statin medications (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.28-1.55, P < 0.01). We found that statin non-adherence less than 80% was predictive of higher total serum cholesterol by 17.23 +/- 1.64 mg/dL (0.45 +/- 0.04 mmol/L). CONCLUSION: In a healthcare system serving predominantly indigent patients, the provision of a greater quantity of statin medication at each prescription fill contributes to improved adherence and greater drug effectiveness.