Potential Impact of USPS Mail Delivery Delays on Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are a primary means of colorectal cancer screening at some health care institutions because of scheduling backlogs for screening, diagnostic, and surveillance endoscopies. However, delays in mail delivery can impact timely analysis of samples, possibly leading to false-negative results and the need for repeat tests. Some patients might be unwilling to submit another test when informed that an earlier sample cannot be reliably analyzed, resulting in a missed opportunity for screening. Observations: The Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center has experienced some success through contacting the local US Postal Service (USPS) to avoid these delays; however, the problem often unpredictably recurs with USPS staff turnover. Laboratories and health systems experiencing delays should first ensure that prepaid envelopes have the correct postage and that their USPS accounts are properly funded, to confirm that insufficient funds are not contributing to the delayed deliveries. Adding additional language to the preprinted envelopes, such as "time-sensitive," may also be helpful. Asking patients to drop off test kits at the laboratory or using private letter carriers is not feasible in some communities. Other strategies include establishing a drop-off box at clinic offices or considering other screening methods, such as colonoscopies or flexible sigmoidoscopies. Conclusions: Clinicians who work in health care systems that use FIT kits need to be aware of the impact that local USPS delays can have on the reliability of FIT results. Health systems should be prepared to implement mitigation strategies if significant delays with mail delivery are encountered.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

Despite the wide availability of effective vaccines, COVID-19 continues to be an infectious disease of global importance. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral and was the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for COVID-19. In clinical guidelines, remdesivir is currently the only recommended antiviral for use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, with or without a supplemental oxygen requirement. It is also recommended for nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection who are at high risk of progression to severe disease. This narrative review explores the evidence for remdesivir across various clinical outcomes and evolution of clinical guidelines through a survey over time of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses. Remdesivir, compared to standard of care, appears to improve survival and disease progression in a variety of patient populations with COVID-19 across a spectrum of disease severity and SARS-CoV-2 variant periods. Remdesivir also appears to improve time to clinical recovery, increase rate of recovery, and reduce time on supplemental oxygen and readmission rates. More recent large, real-world studies further support the early use of remdesivir in a range of patient populations, including those with immunocompromising conditions.

When people get sick with COVID-19, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, treatment with an antiviral may be needed to prevent serious illness. Remdesivir is an antiviral and was the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for COVID-19. Studies have found that treating COVID-19 with remdesivir can save lives and keep patients from getting sicker. Remdesivir appears to help patients get better faster, need oxygen treatment for less time, and avoid having to go back to the hospital. Newer studies with patients treated in real-world settings, outside of controlled research environments, show that early treatment with remdesivir is likely to help many different groups of patients, including those with health conditions that weaken their body's ability to fight infection. Because of this research, guidelines recommend that remdesivir should be given to some patients with COVID-19 outside of the hospital and to those who need to stay in the hospital for COVID-19. Remdesivir should also be given to those who need to stay in the hospital for other reasons but have COVID-19 and a health condition that puts them at risk of serious illness.

Management of Rodenticide Poisoning Associated with Synthetic Cannabinoids.

Synthetic cannabinoids may be adulterated with potent vitamin K antagonists, which should be considered if a patient presents with unexplained coagulopathy, widespread bleeding, and a history of synthetic cannabinoid use.

Interventions to reduce rehospitalizations after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. A systematic review.

RATIONALE: Approximately 20% of patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbations in the United States will be readmitted within 30 days. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently proposed to revise the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program to financially penalize hospitals with high all-cause 30-day rehospitalization rates after a hospitalization for COPD exacerbation on or after October 1, 2014. OBJECTIVES: To report the results of a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce the rehospitalizations after COPD exacerbations. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies published between January 1966 and June 2013. Titles, abstracts, and, subsequently, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Each study was appraised using predefined criteria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 913 titles and abstracts screened, 5 studies (1,393 participants) met eligibility criteria. All studies had a primary outcome of rehospitalization at 6 or 12 months. No study examined 30-day rehospitalization as the primary outcome. Each study tested a different set of interventions. Two studies (one conducted in Canada and one conducted in Spain and Belgium) showed a decrease in all-cause rehospitalization over 12 months in the intervention group versus comparator group (mean number of hospitalizations per patient, 1.0 vs. 1.8; P = 0.01; percent hospitalized, 45 vs. 67%; P = 0.028; respectively). The only study conducted in the United States found a greater than twofold higher risk of mortality in the intervention group (17 vs. 7%, P = 0.003) but no significant difference in rehospitalizations. It was unclear which set of interventions was effective or harmful. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is inadequate to recommend specific interventions to reduce rehospitalizations in this population and does not justify penalizing hospitals for high 30-day rehospitalization rates after COPD exacerbations.