Postoperative delirium in older patients after undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine the 7-day incidence and risk factors of postoperative delirium (POD) occurring after prolapse surgery in women aged ≥60 years. METHODS: A prospective study of women ≥60 years undergoing prolapse surgery at a large academic center. The primary outcome is positive Confusion Assessment Method delirium screen administered in person or by telephone at the time of hospital discharge and postoperative days 1, 3, 5, and 7. RESULTS: This analysis included 165 patients, mean ± SD age of 72.5 ± 6.1 years, with median (IQR) years of education of 13 (12-16), and baseline Modified Mini-Mental Status (3MS) Exam score of 95 (92-98). Prolapse repair type was vaginal for 70% (n=115) and laparoscopic for 30% (n=50) of patients; most under general anesthesia, 151 (92.1%). The incidence of positive delirium screen during the first week after surgery was 12.1% (n=20). Most of these participants screened positive on postoperative day 0, 8.4% (n=14). In univariate analyses, a positive screen was associated with older age and fewer education years, lower 3MS exam score, greater baseline geriatric depression scale score, and greater frailty score. Lower 3MS score was the only variable that remained significant in the final model (adjusted odds ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: One in 12 women ≥60 years deemed eligible for discharge on the day of prolapse surgery screens positive for delirium. The 7-day POD incidence is comparable to other elective non-cardiac surgery cohorts. Given the increasing trend toward same day discharge after major prolapse surgery, more research is needed to determine the impact of universal delirium screening as part of discharge assessments.

Dispensary Staff Perceptions About the Benefits, Risks, and Safety of Cannabis for Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic use of cannabis is common in the United States (up to 18.7% of Americans aged ≥12), and dispensaries in the US are proliferating rapidly. However, the efficacy profile of medical cannabis is unclear, and customers often rely on dispensary staff for purchasing decisions. The objective was to describe cannabis dispensary staff perceptions of medical cannabis benefits and risks, as well as its safety in high-risk populations. METHODS: Online Survey study conducted using Qualtrics from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 with a national sample of dispensary staff who reportedinteracting with customers in a cannabis dispensary selling tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products. Participants were queried about benefits ("helpfulness") and risks ("worry") about cannabis for a variety of medical conditions, and safety in older adults and pregnant women on a five-point Likert scale. These results were then collapsed into three categories including "neutral" (3/5). "I don't know" (uncertainty) was a response option for helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: Participants (n = 434) were from 29 states and included patient-facing dispensary staff (40%); managers (32%); pharmacists (13%); and physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants (5%). Over 80% of participants perceived cannabis as helpful for post-traumatic stress disorder (88.7%), epilepsy (85.3%) and cancer (83.4%). Generally, participants were not concerned about potential cannabis risks, including increased use of illicit drugs (76.3%), decreases in intelligence (74.4%), disrupted sleep (71.7%), and new/worsening health problems from medical cannabis use (70.7%). Cannabis was considered safe in older adults by 81.3% of participants, though there was much less consensus on safety in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis dispensary staff generally view medical cannabis as beneficial and low-risk. However, improvements in dispensary staff training, an increased role for certifying clinicians, and interventions to reduce dispensary staff concerns (e.g., cost, judgment) may improve evidence-based staff recommendations to patients seeking medical cannabis.

Exemptions to state laws regulating opioid prescribing for patients with cancer-related pain: A summary.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain is highly prevalent and is commonly treated with prescription opioids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now encourages conservative opioid prescribing in recognition of potential opioid-related risks. However, CDC guidelines have been misapplied to patients with cancer. Recent laws at the state level reflect the CDC's guidance by limiting opioid prescribing. It is unclear whether states exempt cancer-related pain, which may affect cancer pain management. Thus, the objective of this study was to summarize current state-level opioid prescribing laws and exemptions for patients with cancer. METHODS: Two study authors reviewed publicly available state records to identify the most recent opioid prescribing laws and cancer-related exemptions. Documents were required to have the force of law and be enacted at the time of the search (November 2020). RESULTS: Results indicated that 36 states had enacted formal legislation limiting the duration and/or dosage of opioid prescriptions, and this was largely focused on acute pain and/or initial prescriptions. Of these states, 32 (89%) explicitly exempted patients with cancer-related pain from opioid prescribing laws. Exemptions were broadly applied, with few states providing specific guidance for cancer-related pain prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that most states recognize the importance of prescription opioids in cancer-related pain management. However, drafting nuanced and clinically relevant opioid legislation is challenging for a heterogenous population. Additionally, current attempts to regulate opioid prescribing by state law may unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical management for cancer-related pain. LAY SUMMARY: In this review of state-level legislation, current limitations on opioid prescribing are summarized and detailed information is provided on exemptions for patients with cancer. The majority of states have enacted specific dosage and/or duration limitations on opioid prescribing while including broad exemptions for cancer-related pain. Cancer-related pain exemptions are important to include, as is consistent with national and professional guidelines (eg, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). However, these exemptions may also unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources, including specific guidance for patients with cancer, are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical pain management. ​.

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults: a single-center evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Antigen testing offers rapid and inexpensive testing for SARS-CoV-2 but concerns regarding performance, especially sensitivity, remain. Limited data exists for use of antigen testing in asymptomatic patients; thus, performance and reliability of antigen testing remains unclear. METHODS: 148 symptomatic and 144 asymptomatic adults were included. A nasal swab was collected for testing by Quidel Sofia SARS IFA (Sofia) as point of care. A nasopharyngeal swab was also collected and transported to the laboratory for testing by Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2/Flu/RSV RT-PCR (Cepheid). RESULTS: Overall, Sofia had good agreement with Cepheid (> 95%) in adults, however was less sensitive. Sofia had a sensitivity of 87.8% and 33.3% for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, respectively. Among symptomatic patients, testing > 5 days post symptom onset resulted in lower sensitivity (82%) when compared with testing within 5 days of symptom onset (90%). Of the four Sofia false-negative results in the asymptomatic cohort, 50% went on to develop COVID-19 disease within 5 days of testing. Specificity in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Sofia has acceptable performance in symptomatic adults when tested < 5 days of symptom onset. Caution should be taken when testing patients with ≥ 5 days of symptoms. The combination of low prevalence and reduced sensitivity results in relatively poor performance of in asymptomatic patients. NAAT-based diagnostic assays should be considered in when antigen testing is unreliable, particularly in symptomatic patients with > 5 days of symptom onset and asymptomatic patients.

Cannabis dispensary staff approaches to counseling on potential contraindications to cannabis use: insights from a national self-report survey.

BACKGROUND: Legal cannabis is available in more than half of the United States. Health care professionals (HCPs) rarely give recommendations on dosing or safety of cannabis due to limits imposed by policy and lack of knowledge. Customer-facing cannabis dispensary staff, including clinicians (pharmacists, nurses, physician's assistants), communicate these recommendations in the absence of HCP recommendations. Little is known about how dispensary staff approach individuals with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities. Using responses from a national survey, we describe how cannabis dispensary staff counsel customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities on cannabis use and examine whether state-specific cannabis policy is associated with advice given to customers. METHODS: National, cross-sectional online survey study from February 13, 2020 to October 2, 2020 of dispensary staff at dispensaries that sell delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol containing products. Measures include responses to survey questions about how they approach customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidities; state medicalization score (scale 0-100; higher score indicates more similarity to regulation of traditional pharmacies); legalized adult-use cannabis (yes/no). We conducted multiple mixed effects multivariable logistic regression analyses to understand relationships between state medicalization and dispensary employees' perspectives. RESULTS: Of 434 eligible respondents, most were budtenders (40%) or managers (32%), and a minority were clinicians (18%). State medicalization score was not associated with responses to most survey questions. It was associated with increased odds of encouraging customers with medical comorbidities to inform their traditional HCP of cannabis use (Odds ratio [OR]=1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.4, p=0.03) and reduced odds of recommending cannabis for individuals with cannabis use disorder (CUD) (OR=0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, p=0.04). Working in a state with legalized adult-use cannabis was associated with recommending traditional health care instead of cannabis in those with serious mental illness (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7, p=0.04). Less than half of respondents believed they had encountered CUD (49%), and over a quarter did not believe cannabis is addictive (26%). CONCLUSIONS: When managing cannabis dosing and safety in customers with medical and psychiatric comorbidity, dispensary staff preferred involving individuals' traditional HCPs. Dispensary staff were skeptical of cannabis being addictive. While state regulations of dispensaries may impact the products individuals have access to, they were not associated with recommendations that dispensary staff gave to customers. Alternative explanations for dispensary recommendations may include regional or store-level variation not captured in this analysis.

Perinatal Outcomes of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan. METHODS: In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition. RESULTS: From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.

Analysis of State Cannabis Laws and Dispensary Staff Recommendations to Adults Purchasing Medical Cannabis.

Importance: Over the last decade, cannabis has become more accessible through the proliferation of dispensaries in states that have legalized its use. Most patients using cannabis for medical purposes report getting advice from dispensaries, yet there has been little exploration of frontline dispensary staff practices. Objective: To describe the practices of frontline dispensary workers who interact with customers purchasing cannabis for medical purposes and assess whether dispensary practices are associated with medicalization of state cannabis laws (degree to which they resemble regulation of prescription or over-the-counter drugs) and statewide adult use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide cross-sectional survey study was conducted from February 13, 2020, to October 2, 2020, using an online survey tool. Potential respondents were eligible if they reported working in a dispensary that sells tetrahydrocannabinol-containing products and interacting with customers about cannabis purchases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant responses to questions about formulating customer recommendations and talking to customers about risks. Results: The 434 survey responses from 351 unique dispensaries were most often completed by individuals who identified as budtenders (40%), managers (32%), and pharmacists (13%). Most respondents reported basing customer recommendations on the customer's medical condition (74%), the experiences of other customers (70%), the customer's prior experience with cannabis (67%), and the respondent's personal experience (63%); fewer respondents relied on clinician input (40%), cost (45%), or inventory (12%). Most respondents routinely advised customers about safe storage and common adverse effects, but few counseled customers about cannabis use disorder, withdrawal, motor vehicle collision risk, or psychotic reactions. A higher state medicalization score was significantly associated with using employer training (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.67) and physician or clinician input (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43) as a basis for recommendation. Medicalization score was not associated with counseling about cannabis risks. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study provides insight into how frontline dispensary staff base cannabis recommendations and counsel about risks. The findings may have utility for clinicians to counsel patients who purchase cannabis, customers who want to be prepared for a dispensary visit, and policy makers whose decisions affect cannabis laws.

Comparison of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes (GDM2) Trial: Design and rationale.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects approximately 5 to 7% of pregnancies and is associated with increased risk for fetal overgrowth, cesarean delivery, birth trauma, and pre-eclampsia. GDM is commonly diagnosed in the US using a two-step screening and confirmatory approach, whereas a one-step approach is commonly used outside the US. Recent guidelines have suggested that the one-step approach should be used to diagnose GDM, although concern that this may increase the prevalence of GDM to approximately 18%-as well as the lack of clinical trials-based evidence regarding the difference in perinatal outcomes-has led to skepticism about adopting the one-step approach. The Comparison of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes (GDM2) Trial is a single-center, parallel-arm, comparative effectiveness trial of one-step versus two-step GDM screening strategies on the rate of adverse perinatal outcomes including: large-for-gestational age (LGA) deliveries (primary outcome), small-for-gestational age (SGA), macrosomia, cesarean delivery, fetal growth and body composition, and maternal and neonatal composite outcomes. This paper describes the design and analysis plan of the GDM2 Trial as well as overall challenges in assessing the impact of screening and diagnosis strategy on adverse pregnancy outcomes. We will also assess whether the additional women diagnosed with the one-step approach benefit from treatment as assessed by metabolic profiles at one year postpartum. Ultimately, this study will provide the necessary evidence for establishing universal guidelines for GDM diagnosis and implementation into clinical care.