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.

Partial gland ablation with high intensity focal ultrasound impact on genito-urinary function and quality of life: our initial experience.

INTRODUCTION:   Partial gland ablation (PGA) using high intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) is an alternative to active surveillance for low to intermediate risk localized prostate cancer.  This pilot study assessed quality of life (QoL) outcomes during the implementation of PGA-HIFU at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS:   We prospectively enrolled 25 men with a diagnosis of localized low/intermediate risk prostate cancer who elected to undergo PGA-HIFU in a pilot study at our institution between 2013 and 2016.  Patients underwent pre-treatment mpMRI and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies.  The primary endpoints were impact on patient-reported functional outcomes (erectile, urinary function, QoL) assessed at 1, 3, 6- and 12-months. RESULTS:   The median age was 64 years old (IQR 59.5-67).  Baseline median International Index of Erectile Function-15 score was 50, which decreased to 18 at 1 month (p < 0.0005), returned to baseline by 3 months and thereafter. International Prostate Symptom Score median at baseline was 8, which worsened to 12 at 1 month (p = 0.0088), and subsequently improved to baseline thereafter.  On the UCLA-Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary function, there was a decrease in median score from 92.7 at baseline to 76.0 at 1 month (p < 0.0001), which improved to or above baseline afterwards.  QoL remained similar to baseline at each follow up period as assessed by EQ-5D and the Functional Cancer Therapy-Prostate score. CONCLUSIONS:   In this initial cohort of PGA-HIFU men at our institution, patients demonstrated a slight, but transient, deterioration in urinary and erectile function at 1 month prior to normalization.  All QoL metrics showed no impact upon 1 year of follow up post-treatment.

Prospective evaluation of postoperative pain and opioid use after minor urologic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Filling an opioid prescription after a minor urologic procedure increases patient risk of overdose and misuse. Strategies to reduce the number of opioids reaching the community are critical. This study evaluates opioid use after minor urologic procedures at a Canadian academic center and guides future prescribing recommendations. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated patients over 18 years old undergoing minor urologic procedures (penile, scrotal, urethral, etc.) from September 2020 to May 2022. Consenting participants were given a pain diary and postoperative pain questionnaire. Patients on chronic pain medications or those who had major surgery within six months were excluded. Response rate, pain on visual analog scale, pain control satisfaction, quantity of opioids prescribed, and consumption of opioid and non-opioid medication were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 61.7 years (range 20- 87) and 96% of patients identified as male. The response rate for the opioid diary and pain questionnaire was 57%. Forty-two patients (78%) were offered an opioid prescription following their surgery, but only 12 of those patients (22%) filled and consumed any opioids analgesics. Forty-two patients (78%) used no postoperative opioids, and the mean oral morphine equivalents (OME) consumed was 5.87 (standard deviation 16.7). There was a total of 259 OME unused from post-procedure prescriptions. The mean overall pain score for patients who did and did not fill opioid prescriptions were 3.18/10 and 1.79/10 (p<0.01), respectively, with mean overall pain management satisfaction score of 8.63/10 and 8.58/10 (p=0.94), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients undergoing minor urologic procedures do not require opioids to manage postoperative pain. Based on our data, we suggest that a prescription for 39 OME would adequately treat postoperative pain in 95% of patients undergoing minor urologic procedures. Education around pain management with non-narcotic modalities is imperative, and practice changes are warranted to address the opioid crisis within our specialty.

Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Patients on Hemodialysis: Clinical Research Protocol for a Prospective, Controlled, Quality Improvement Study.

Background: Patients on dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), many of which are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with an increased risk of falls, fractures, and hospitalization. MedSafer is an electronic tool that generates individualized, prioritized reports with deprescribing opportunities by cross-referencing patient health data and medications with guidelines for deprescribing. Objectives: Our primary aim was to increase deprescribing, as compared with usual care (medication reconciliation or MedRec), for outpatients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, through the provision of MedSafer deprescribing opportunity reports to the treating team and patient empowerment deprescribing brochures provided directly to the patients themselves. Design: This controlled, prospective, quality improvement study with a contemporary control builds on existing policy at the outpatient hemodialysis centers where biannual MedRecs are performed by the treating nephrologist and nursing team. Setting: The study takes place on 2 of the 3 outpatient hemodialysis units of the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The intervention unit is the Lachine Hospital, and the control unit is the Montreal General Hospital. Patients: A closed cohort of outpatient hemodialysis patients visit one of the hemodialysis centers multiple times per week for their hemodialysis treatment. The initial cohort of the intervention unit includes 85 patients, whereas the control unit has 153 patients. Patients who are transplanted, hospitalized during their scheduled MedRec, or die before or during the MedRec will be excluded from the study. Measurements: We will compare rates of deprescribing between the control and intervention units following a single MedRec. On the intervention unit, MedRecs will be paired with MedSafer reports (the intervention), and on the control unit, MedRecs will take place without MedSafer reports (usual care). On the intervention unit, patients will also receive deprescribing patient empowerment brochures for select medication classes (gabapentinoids, proton-pump inhibitors, sedative hypnotics and opioids for chronic non-cancer pain). Physicians on the intervention unit will be interviewed post-MedRec to determine implementation barriers and facilitators. Methods: The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed on the intervention unit, as compared with the control unit, following a biannual MedRec. This study will build on existing policies aimed at optimizing medication therapy in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. The electronic deprescribing decision support tool, MedSafer, will be tested in a dialysis setting, where nephrologists are regularly in contact with patients. MedRecs are an interdisciplinary clinical activity performed biannually on the hemodialysis units (in the Spring and Fall), and within 1 week following discharge from any hospitalization. This study will take place in the Fall of 2022. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted among physicians on the intervention unit to determine barriers and facilitators to implementation of the MedSafer-supplemented MedRec process and analyzed according to grounded theory in qualitative research. Limitations: Deprescribing can be limited due to nephrologists' time constraints, cognitive impairment of the hemodialyzed patient stemming from their illness and complex medication regimens, and lack of sufficient patient resources to learn about the medications they are taking and their potential harms. Conclusions: Electronic decision support can facilitate deprescribing for the clinical team by providing a nudge reminder, decreasing the time it takes to review and effectuate guideline recommendations, and by lowering the barrier of when and how to taper. Guidelines for deprescribing in the dialysis population have recently been published and incorporated into the MedSafer software. To our knowledge, this will be the first study to examine the efficacy of pairing these guidelines with MedRecs by leveraging electronic decision support in the outpatient dialysis population. Trial registration: This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05585268) on October 2, 2022, prior to the enrolment of the first participant on October 3, 2022. The registration number is pending at the time of protocol submission.

Contexte: Les patients sous dialyse se voient souvent prescrire de nombreux médicaments (polypharmacie), dont plusieurs médicaments potentiellement inappropriés (MPI). Les MPI sont associés à un risque accru de chutes, de fractures et d'hospitalisations. MedSécure est un outil électronique qui génère des rapports individualisés et classés par ordre de priorité indiquant les possibilités de déprescription. L'outil fonctionne en croisant les données sur la santé des patients et les médicaments sous ordonnance avec des lignes directrices pour la déprescription. Objectifs de l'étude: L'objectif principal est de favoriser la déprescription par rapport aux soins habituels (Medication Reconciliation [MedRecs] ou bilan comparatif des médicaments) chez les patients ambulatoires recevant une hémodialyse d'entretien, en fournissant des rapports MedSécure de déprescription à l'équipe soignante et des brochures encourageant la déprescription aux patients. Conception: Cette étude prospective et contrôlée (témoin contemporain) d'amélioration de la qualité s'appuie sur la politique existante dans les centers d'hémodialyse ambulatoires où un bilan des médicaments (MedRecs) est effectué deux fois par année par le néphrologue traitant et l'équipe de soins infirmiers. Cadre: L'étude a lieu dans deux des trois unités d'hémodialyse ambulatoire du Center universitaire de santé McGill à Montréal (Québec, Canada). L'unité d'intervention est l'Hôpital de Lachine et l'unité témoin est l'Hôpital général de Montréal. Sujets: Une cohorte fermée de patients ambulatoires sous hémodialyse qui visitent plusieurs fois par semaine un center d'hémodialyse pour leurs traitements. La cohorte initiale de l'unité d'intervention compte 85 patients, tandis que l'unité témoin compte 132 patients. Seront exclus les patients qui recevront une greffe, qui seront hospitalisés pendant leur MedRecs ou qui décèderont avant ou pendant le MedRecs. Mesures: Nous comparerons les taux de déprescription entre les unités témoin et d'intervention après un seul MedRecs. Dans l'unité d'intervention, le MedRecs sera associé aux rapports MedSécure (l'intervention); dans l'unité témoin, le MedRecs aura lieu sans rapports MedSécure (soins habituels). Au sein de l'unité d'intervention, les patients recevront également des brochures encourageant la déprescription pour certaines classes de médicaments (gabapentinoïdes, inhibiteurs de la pompe à protons, hypnotiques sédatifs et opioïdes pour les douleurs chroniques non cancéreuses). Les médecins de l'unité d'intervention seront interviewés après le MedRec pour déterminer les obstacles et les facilitateurs à la mise en œuvre. Méthodologie: Le principal critère d'évaluation sera la proportion de patients dans l'unité d'intervention chez qui au moins un MPI sera déprescrit après un MedRec semestriel, par rapport à l'unité témoin. L'étude s'appuiera sur les politiques existantes visant à optimiser la médication chez les patients suivant des traitements d'hémodialyse d'entretien. L'outil électronique d'aide à la décision de déprescription MedSécure sera testé en contexte de dialyse, où les néphrologues sont régulièrement en contact avec les patients. Les MedRecs sont une activité clinique interdisciplinaire effectuée semestriellement sur les unités d'hémodialyse (au printemps et à l'automne) et dans la semaine suivant un congé de l'hôpital. Cette étude aura lieu à l'automne 2022. Des entretiens semi-structurés seront menés avec les médecins de l'unité d'intervention afin d'établir les obstacles et les facilitateurs à la mise en œuvre du processus MedRec complété par MedSécure, puis analysés selon une théorie fondée sur la recherche qualitative. Limites: La déprescription peut être limitée par des contraintes de temps des néphrologues, des troubles cognitifs résultant des maladies et des régimes médicamenteux complexes des patients sous hémodialyse ou par un manque de ressources pour éduquer les patients sur les médicaments qu'ils prennent et leurs méfaits potentiels. Conclusion: Un outil électronique d'aide à la décision peut faciliter le processus de déprescription pour l'équipe clinique en fournissant un rappel, en réduisant le temps nécessaire à l'examen et à l'application des recommandations, et en limitant les obstacles liés au moment et à la façon de réduire le nombre de médicaments. Des lignes directrices sur la déprescription dans la population des patients sous dialyse ont récemment été publiées et incorporées au logiciel MedSécure. À notre connaissance, il s'agit de la première étude à examiner l'efficacité du couplage des lignes directrices avec le MedRecs en tirant parti de l'outil électronique d'aide à la décision en contexte d'hémodialyse ambulatoire.

The role of quantitative MRI-based prostate zonal parameters in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer A U.S. cohort.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the clinical utility of quantitative prostatic zonal measurements on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the predication of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution study included 144 men who underwent mpMRI from 2015-2017. Prostate zone parameters were measured on mpMRI. Correlation and multivariable analysis evaluated the relationship between prostate zone parameters and the presence of csPCa. RESULTS: The mean age was 66.9±7.8 years old. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were 51.6 ml (37.1-74.5) and 6.1 ng/ ml (4.5-8.2), respectively. Men with csPCa had significantly smaller total prostate volume (TPV), transitional zone volume (TZV), and transitional zone thickness (TZT), and larger transitional zone density (TZD) compared to those without PCa; however, on multivariate variable analysis, only TZD maintained significance. TZD had a comparable area under the curve to PSA density (PSAD) and PSA (0.74 vs. 0.73 vs. 0.60, respectively). In a subgroup analysis of men with PCa, PSAD and TZD were significantly higher in men with Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2 compared to those with GG <2 (p=0.002); however, this significance is not maintained on logistic regression in predicting GG. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative features of prostate zones on MRI may aid in identifying better predictors of csPCa. Zonal-based PSA density (TZD) may be a useful marker in identifying csPCa. Further exploration is needed to understand the clinical application of larger TZV in men with csPCa compared to those with insignificant disease.

Prostatic zonal parameters and lower urinary tract symptoms as quantified via magnetic resonance imaging.

INTRODUCTION: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common diagnosis among aging males; however, the relationship between prostate volume and lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) severity is imperfect. The goal of this study was to comprehensively investigate the relationship between various prostate zone-based parameters measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and LUTS. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected for 144 patients who underwent MRI between 2015 and 2017 at a single institution. Prostate volumes were measured on sagittal and axial T2 weighted using the prostate ellipsoid formula. RESULTS: Only transition zone thickness (TZT) correlated with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (Pearson's=0.33, p=0.007). The intraprostatic protrusion (IPP) component (rho=0.261, p=0.036), transitional zone volume (TZV) (rho=0.264, p=0.034), and TZT (Pearson's correlation=0.422, p<0.001) all correlated with worsening quality of life (QoL) scores. In total, 97.9% of men had the presence of an IPP (>0 mm) and larger IPPs were found in older men with higher postvoid residual volumes. Larger peripheral zone volume (PZV) (odds ratio [OR ] 3.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-12.30, p<0.05), TZV (OR 6.00, 95% CI 1.69-21.35, p<0.05), and TZT (OR 4.00, 95% CI 1.17-13.69, p<0.05) were predictive of developing severe LUTS ; however, IPP (p=0.122) was not. CONCLUSIONS: TZV, TZT, and IPP all demonstrated a role in the evaluation of LUTS, with predictive capabilities. IPP is very common but not always clinically significant. Clarifying more precise zonal parameters and their relationship with LUTS may ultimately help clinicians guide the need for surgical intervention more precisely.

Impact of Age and Fertility Status on the Consistency of Repeat Measurements of Sperm DNA Damage: A Single-center, Prospective, Dual Visit Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between abnormal routine semen parameters and DNA damage associated with advanced paternal age and infertility by controlling for common biases contested in the current literature. MATERIALS & METHODS: Prospective study using 151 semen samples collected from men aged 18-80 at 2 visits with 1-3 months intervals. Samples were collected from both infertile and general population controls. Conventional semen parameters were measured including volume, concentration and motility. Sperm DNA damage was measured using the %DNA Fragmentation Index (%DFI) and High DNA stainability (%HDS) using Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA). Patients were then classified according to %DFI as normal (<18), intermediate (18-27), or high (>27). RESULTS: Significant correlation between all sperm parameters was seen between both visits regardless of age. DFI had the highest correlation between both visits (R2 = 0.77). Progressive motility, total motility and %DFI were significantly affected in men ≥50 years old when compared to men <35 and men 35-49 years old (P <.001). Forty-eight percent of men with intermediate %DFI changed category on their second visit, whereas men with high and low %DFI changed category in 15% and 9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Sperm and SCSA parameters do not change significantly between 2 visits at 1-3 months intervals in the total population and after subgrouping. Men of advanced age have poorer sperm parameters and more DNA damage. Men with initially normal or elevated %DFI are unlikely to change DNA damage category. Older men are more likely to have sperm parameters and DNA damage vary on repeat semen analysis compared to younger men.

Deprescribing Opportunities for Hospitalized Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis: A Secondary Analysis of the MedSafer Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: End-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis have a substantial risk of polypharmacy due their propensity for comorbidity and contact with the health care system. MedSafer is an electronic decision support tool that integrates patient comorbidity and medication lists to generate personalized deprescribing reports focused on identifying potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Objective: To conduct a secondary analysis of patients on regular hemodialysis included in the MedSafer randomized controlled trial to investigate the patterns of polypharmacy and evaluate the efficacy of the MedSafer deprescribing algorithms. Design: Secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial. Setting: Medical units in 11 acute care hospitals in Canada. Patients: The MedSafer trial enrolled 5698 participants with an expected prognosis of >3 months, age 65 years and older, and on 5 or more daily home medications; 140 participants were receiving chronic hemodialysis. Measurements: The primary outcome of the trial was 30-day adverse drug events (ADEs) post-hospital discharge, and a key secondary outcome was deprescribing. Methods: Control patients received usual care (medication reconciliation), whereas clinicians caring for intervention patients received a MedSafer report that highlighted individualized opportunities for deprescribing. Results: There were 70 patients in each of the control and intervention arms. The median number of home medications was 14 (compared with a median of 10 medications in the general trial population). The most frequent medications observed that were potentially inappropriate were proton pump inhibitors (potentially inappropriate in 55/76 users; 72.4%), diabetes medications in patients with a HBA1C <7.5% (36/65 users; 55.4%), docusate (27/27 users; 100%), gabapentinoids (27/36 users; 75%), and combination antiplatelet/anticoagulants (22/97 users; 22.7%). The proportion of PIMs deprescribed was higher during the intervention phase (28.8% vs 19.3%; absolute increase 9.4% [95% confidence interval 1.3%-17.6%]) compared with the control phase. There was no observed difference in ADEs at 30-day post-discharge between the control and the intervention groups. The most common ADE (n = 3) was gastrointestinal bleeding attributed to antiplatelet agents. Limitations: This was a post hoc exploratory analysis, the original trial did not stratify by hemodialysis status, and the small sample size precludes drawing any definitive conclusions. Conclusion: MedSafer facilitates deprescribing in hospitalized patients on hemodialysis. Larger-scale implementation of decision support software for deprescribing in dialysis and long-term follow-up are likely required to demonstrate an impact on ADEs.

Contexte: Le risque de polypharmacie est important chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale terminale (IRT) sous dialyse en raison de leurs nombreuses comorbidités et de leurs contacts fréquents avec le système de santé. MedSafer est un outil électronique d'aide à la décision qui intègre les comorbidités et la liste de médicaments des patients pour générer des rapports de déprescription personnalisés, axés sur l'identification de médicaments potentiellement inappropriés (MPI). Objectifs: Procéder à une analyse secondaire des patients sous hémodialyse inclus dans l'essai contrôlé randomisé MedSafer dans le but d'examiner les profils de polypharmacie et d'évaluer l'efficacité des algorithmes de déprescription de MedSafer. Type d'étude: Analyse secondaire d'un essai clinique randomisé en grappes. Cadre: Les unités médicales de onze hôpitaux de soins aigus au Canada. Sujets: L'essai MedSafer a inclus 5698 patients de 65 ans et plus avec un pronostic attendu de plus de trois mois et prenant au moins cinq médicaments quotidiennement à domicile; 140 patients étaient traités par hémodialyse chronique. Mesures: Le principal critère d'évaluation de l'essai était la survenue d'événements indésirables attribuables aux médicaments (ÉIM) dans les 30 jours suivant le congé de l'hôpital. Un des principaux critères d'évaluation secondaires était la déprescription. Méthodologie: Les patients du groupe témoin recevaient les soins habituels (bilan comparatif des médicaments) alors qu'un rapport MedSafer soulignant les possibilités de déprescription individuelles était envoyé aux cliniciens qui prenaient en charge les patients du groupe d'intervention. Résultats: Chaque bras de l'essai (témoin et intervention) comptait 70 sujets. Le nombre médian de médicaments pris à domicile était de 14 (comparativement à 10 dans la population générale de l'essai). Les médicaments les plus souvent cités comme potentiellement inappropriés étaient les inhibiteurs de la pompe à protons (55/76 patients; 72,4%), les médicaments contre le diabète chez les patients avec un taux d'HbA1c inférieur à 7,5% (36/65 patients; 55,4%), le docusate (27/27 patients; 100%), les gabapentinoïdes (27/36 patients; 75%) et les antiplaquettaires/anticoagulants combinés (22/97 patients; 22,7%). La proportion de MPI déprescrits était plus élevée dans la phase d'intervention que dans la phase témoin (28,8% c. 19,3%; augmentation absolue de 9,4% [IC 95%: 1,3 à 17,6%]). Aucune différence n'a été observée entre les deux groupes en ce qui concerne les ÉIM dans les 30 jours suivant le congé de l'hôpital. Une hémorragie gastro-intestinale attribuable aux agents antiplaquettaires était l'événement indésirable le plus fréquent (n = 3). Limites: Il s'agit d'une analyse exploratoire a posteriori. L'essai initial n'a pas été stratifié selon le status en hémodialyse. La faible taille de l'échantillon ne permet pas de tirer des conclusions définitives. Conclusion: MedSafer facilite la déprescription chez les patients hospitalisés qui reçoivent des traitements d'hémodialyse. Pour démontrer un éventuel impact sur les événements indésirables attribuables aux médicaments, il apparaît nécessaire de faire un suivi à plus long terme et à plus grande échelle du logiciel d'aide à la décision de déprescription en contexte de dialyse.

Does testicular sperm retrieval adversely impact spermatogenesis over the long-term?

Testicular sperm retrieval (TSR) techniques are valuable in the context of severe idiopathic male factor infertility; however, there are few studies in the literature examining the long-term impact of TSR on testicular function. The objective was to determine whether testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) or microdissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) worsens the pre-existing spermatogenesis deficiency in men with either cryptozoospermia or severe oligozoospermia. The study population consisted of 145 men with either cryptozoospermia or severe oligozoospermia that underwent TESA or micro-TESE and had long-term post-operative semen analyses (SA). Patients with SA prior to and following TSR were included (n = 24). Amongst them, 16 men underwent TESA and 8 underwent micro-TESE. The follow-up SA was obtained at a mean of 3.0 ± 2.0 years following TSR (range: 0.3-8.3 years) amongst all participants. The post-operative semen parameters in the TESA group were similar to the pre-intervention parameters (p > 0.1). Similarly, the micro-TESE cohort did not demonstrate significant alterations in semen parameters post-intervention (p > 0.05). None of the men in the study became azoospermic following the TSR. Our study indicates TESA or micro-TESE do not appear to worsen the pre-existing spermatogenesis deficiencies in cryptozoospermic and oligozoospermic men over a long-term period. Larger studies are required to corroborate these findings.

Artificial Intelligence Based Machine Learning Models Predict Sperm Parameter Upgrading after Varicocele Repair: A Multi-Institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE: Varicocele repair is recommended in the presence of a clinical varicocele together with at least one abnormal semen parameter, and male infertility. Unfortunately, up to 50% of men who meet criteria for repair will not see meaningful benefit in outcomes despite successful treatment. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model to predict which men with varicocele will benefit from treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men with infertility, clinical varicocele, and at least one abnormal semen parameter from two large urology centers in North America (Miami and Toronto) between 2006 and 2020. We collected pre and post-operative clinical and hormonal data following treatment. Clinical upgrading was defined as an increase in sperm concentration that would allow a couple to access previously unavailable reproductive options. The tiers used for upgrading were: 1-5 million/mL (ICSI/IVF), 5-15 million/mL (IUI) and >15 million/mL (natural conception). Thus moving from ICSI/IVF to IUI, or from IUI to natural conception, would be considered an upgrade. AI models were trained and tested using R to predict which patients were likely to upgrade after surgery. The model sorted men into categories that defined how likely they were to upgrade after surgery (likely, equivocal, and unlikely). RESULTS: Data from 240 men were included from both centers. A total of 45.6% of men experienced an upgrade in sperm concentration following surgery, 48.1% did not change, and 6.3% downgraded. The data from Miami were used to create a random forest model for predicting upgrade in sperm concentration. On external validation using Toronto data, the model accurately predicted upgrade in 87% of men deemed likely to improve, and in 49% and 36% of men who were equivocal and unlikely to improve, respectively. Overall, the personalized prediction for patients in the validation cohort was accurate (AUC 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning model performed well in predicting clinically meaningful post-varicocelectomy sperm parameters using pre-operative hormonal, clinical, and semen analysis data. To our knowledge, this is the first prediction model to show the utility of hormonal data, as well as the first to use machine learning models to predict clinically meaningful upgrading. This model will be published online as a clinical calculator that can be used in the preoperative counseling of patients.

Overview of seminal fluid biomarkers for the evaluation of chronic prostatitis: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a very common and difficult condition to evaluate, as it is a clinical diagnosis, without a measurable diagnostic "gold standard". The aim of this scoping review is to synthesize all the available data for seminal fluid biomarkers used to assess patients with CP/CPPS. METHODS: A systematic search to identify all relevant publications was conducted on October 22, 2020 across five databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, PubMed, CCRT, and the CINAHL. Two independent authors screened all articles and extracted relevant data. RESULTS: A total of 27 articles met the eligibility criteria. A majority of studies were case-control (15), with 6 observational cohorts and 6 comparative interventional studies. The total number of pooled patients included 585 patients with CP/CPPS (unspecified subtype), 371 patients with inflammatory CP/CPPS, 387 patients with non-inflammatory CP/CPPS, 354 patients with chronic bacterial prostatitis, and 432 healthy controls. Inflammatory seminal biomarkers were the most frequently studied, with IL6, IL8, TNFα and IL1ß being the most promising candidates. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of very promising seminal biomarkers to help categorize and monitor therapies in CP/CPPS. Large multicentre studies using a shared protocol for measuring seminal biomarkers with the primary intention of biomarker validation are needed prior to clinical implementation. Identification of biomarker(s) will facilitate the etiological categorization of patients with chronic prostatitis and provide an objective framework to tailor specific therapies according to the biomarker family.

Testicular Sperm Aspiration (TESA) or Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction (Micro-tese): Which Approach is better in Men with Cryptozoospermia and Severe Oligozoospermia?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare sperm retrieval outcomes by testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) and micro-dissection testicular sperm extraction (micro-TESE) in non-azoospermic men. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 145 consecutive testicular sperm retrievals in men with cryptozoospermia (n = 56) or severe oligozoospermia (n = 84). The decision to perform a TESA or a micro-TESE was made after thorough discussion of the pros and cons of these procedures with the couple. Final assessment of sperm recovery, on the day of ICSI, was reported either as successful (available sperm for ICSI) or unsuccessful (no sperm for ICSI). RESULTS: Mean sperm concentration, sperm motility, testicular volume and serum FSH level of men undergoing TESA were not significantly different from those of men undergoing micro-TESE. In men with severe oligozoospermia (<5 million/ml), sperm recovery was successful in 95% (18/19) of those who underwent micro-TESE and in 92% (60/65) of those who underwent TESA (P > 0.05). In men with cryptozoospermia, sperm recovery was successful in 88% (42/48) of men who underwent micro-TESE and 25% (2/8) of men who underwent TESA (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that in men with severe oligozoospermia, TESA and micro-TESE are equally successful sperm retrieval techniques. However, in men with cryptozoospermia, sperm retrieval rates are significantly higher with micro-TESE than TESA.

Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Kidney Stones in Cystic Fibrosis.

Purpose: To investigate the prevalence of urolithiasis in cystic fibrosis (CF) and to summarize the available clinical features within this unique population. Methods: Studies reporting the prevalence of urolithiasis in CF patients were identified by a systematic search of the literature from inception to July 31, 2020 on three databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science. Data were extracted on a predetermined standardized form by two independent authors. Results: A total of 596 publications were retrieved and screened, 15 of which met the eligibility criteria. The publications were published between 1993 and 2019 and were all observational in design. There was a total of 2982 patients with CF included in this review. The overall prevalence of stone formation in the CF population was 4.6% (137/2982). The mean age of diagnosis was 25.1 ± 9.6 and ranged from 0.25 to 47. Ultrasound was the most common imaging modality for kidney stone diagnosis. There was no apparent sex difference, with a female to male ratio of 1:1. Surgical intervention was required in 37.8% (34/90) of cases. Stone recurrence was reported in 42.9% (33/77) of stone formers. Conclusions: This review provides the most recent update for the prevalence of urolithiasis in CF patients and summarizes the available clinical data. Our findings suggest that patients with CF could be at risk for developing stones at a younger age and require interventional management strategies at higher rates compared with the general population. Given the heterogeneity of the literature for urolithiasis in CF, larger population-based studies reporting the epidemiology, clinical features, and management strategies are required to further our understanding of urolithiasis in CF.