Role of weight bias and patient-physician communication in the underutilization of bariatric surgery.

A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy and safety of bariatric surgery for clinically severe obesity. Despite this empirical support, bariatric surgery remains profoundly underutilized. The reasons for underutilization are likely multifactorial, including health insurance coverage and benefits design, lack of awareness about bariatric surgery by patients, and anecdotal concerns about safety. We believe that there are two other factors-the occurrence of weight stigma and bias and suboptimal communication between patients and providers-that also serve as barriers to greater utilization. The article reviews the existing literature related to these two factors. The review also highlights the science of shared medical decision-making as a potential strategy to promote appropriate conversations between patients and providers, both surgical and nonsurgical, about the efficacy and safety of bariatric surgery. Shared medical decision-making is used in other areas where complex medical decisions are required. We believe that it has great potential to contribute to the increased utilization for the millions of individuals who could benefit from bariatric surgery.

Treatment of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma With Venetoclax: A Single-Center Evaluation of Off-Label Use.

INTRODUCTION: Venetoclax is a highly effective agent in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia. Phase I/II clinical trials have shown it to be safe and effective in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Adverse events were consistent with package labeling despite escalation to high doses. To the best of our knowledge, venetoclax use outside the setting of a clinical trial of NHL has not been reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective study of 34 adult patients who had been treated off-label with venetoclax-containing regimens from 2016 to 2018. RESULTS: Of the 34 patients with NHL treated with venetoclax therapy, 13 had had high-grade B-cell lymphoma/diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 10 mantle cell lymphoma, 5 transformed follicular lymphoma, 2 Richter transformation, 2 marginal zone lymphoma, 1 follicular lymphoma, and 1 post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. The patients had received a median of 4 previous therapies. The overall response rate was 26% (3% with a complete response and 35% with stable disease). The median venetoclax dose achieved was 400 mg. Of those receiving combination therapy, 18% had undergone radiation and 62% had received other systemic antineoplastic therapy. The median progression-free and overall survival for the cohort was 2 and 4.5 months, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 76% of the patients during venetoclax therapy. The adverse events included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, tumor lysis syndrome, infection, neutropenic fever, diarrhea, and 1 opportunistic infection. CONCLUSION: Venetoclax therapy in a real-world cohort offered modest benefits in heavily pretreated patients. Adverse events were observed at a greater incidence than in the clinical trials. A wide heterogeneity of venetoclax dose escalation, multiagent combinations, and timing of initiation were identified and require investigation in subsequent clinical trials.

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of Exenatide Therapy for the Inpatient Management of General Medicine and Surgery Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial examined the safety and efficacy of exenatide alone or in combination with basal insulin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 150 patients with blood glucose (BG) between 140 and 400 mg/dL, treated at home with diet, oral agents, or insulin at a total daily dose <0.5 units/kg, were randomized to exenatide alone (5 µg twice daily), exenatide plus basal insulin, or a basal-bolus insulin regimen. The primary end point was difference in mean daily BG concentration among groups. RESULTS: Mean daily BG was similar between patients treated with exenatide plus basal and a basal-bolus regimen (154 ± 39 vs. 166 ± 40 mg/dL, P = 0.31), and exenatide plus basal resulted in lower daily BG than did exenatide alone (177 ± 41 mg/dL, P = 0.02). Exenatide plus basal resulted in a higher proportion of BG levels in target range between 70 and 180 mg/dL compared with exenatide and basal-bolus (78% vs. 62% vs. 63%, respectively, P = 0.023). More patients in the exenatide and exenatide plus basal groups experienced nausea or vomiting than in the basal-bolus group (10% vs. 11% vs. 2%, P = 0.17), with three patients (6%) discontinued exenatide owing to adverse events. There were no differences in hypoglycemia <54 mg/dL (2% vs. 0% vs. 4%, P = 0.77) or length of stay (5 vs. 4 vs. 4 days, P = 0.23) among basal plus exenatide, exenatide, and basal-bolus groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study indicate that exenatide alone or in combination with basal insulin is safe and effective for the management of hospitalized general medical and surgical patients with T2D.

THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CO-ADMINISTRATION OF SITAGLIPTIN WITH METFORMIN IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES AT HOSPITAL DISCHARGE.

OBJECTIVE: Few randomized controlled trials have focused on the optimal management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) during the transition from the inpatient to outpatient setting. This multicenter open-label study explored a discharge strategy based on admission hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) to guide therapy in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D. METHODS: Patients with HbA1c ≤7% (53 mmol/mol) were discharged on sitagliptin and metformin; patients with HbA1c between 7 and 9% (53-75 mmol/mol) and those >9% (75 mmol/mol) were discharged on sitagliptinmetformin with glargine U-100 at 50% or 80% of the hospital daily dose. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c at 3 and 6 months after discharge. RESULTS: Mean HbA1c on admission for the entire cohort (N = 253) was 8.70 ± 2.3% and decreased to 7.30 ± 1.5% and 7.30 ± 1.7% at 3 and 6 months ( P<.001). Patients with HbA1c <7% went from 6.3 ± 0.5% to 6.3 ± 0.80% and 6.2 ± 1.0% at 3 and 6 months. Patients with HbA1c between 7 and 9% had a reduction from 8.0 ± 0.6% to 7.3 ± 1.1% and 7.3 ± 1.3%, and those with HbA1c >9% from 11.3 ± 1.7% to 8.0 ± 1.8% and 8.0 ± 2.0% at 3 and 6 months after discharge (both P<.001). Clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL) was observed in 4%, 4%, and 7% among patients with a HbA1c <7%, 7 to 9%, and >9%, while a glucose <40 mg/dL was reported in <1% in all groups. CONCLUSION: The proposed HbA1c-based hospital discharge algorithm using a combination of sitagliptin-metformin was safe and significantly improved glycemic control after hospital discharge in general medicine and surgery patients with T2D. ABBREVIATIONS: BG = blood glucose; DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase-4; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Systemic Treatments for Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Hemodialysis.

Chemotherapy, and now targeted therapies and immunotherapies, are widely used for the management of patients with all stages of lung cancer. Some challenges present when patients are receiving concomitant hemodialysis for various comorbid conditions. However, this should not immediately rule out a patient for treatment. Many drugs may be safely given to patients who are receiving hemodialysis with the proper dosing schedule and careful monitoring. This article will outline the current literature surrounding the use of these drugs in patients undergoing active hemodialysis while being treated for lung cancer.

Efficacy of sitagliptin for the hospital management of general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (Sita-Hospital): a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of incretin-based drugs in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital has not been extensively assessed. In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin) plus basal insulin with a basal-bolus insulin regimen for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in general medicine and surgery in hospitals. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial (Sita-Hospital) in five hospitals in the USA, enrolling patients aged 18-80 years with type 2 diabetes and a random blood glucose concentration of 7·8-22·2 mmol/L who were being treated with diet or oral antidiabetic drugs or had a total daily insulin dose of 0·6 units per kg or less, admitted to general medicine and surgery services. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either sitagliptin plus basal glargine once daily (the sitagliptin-basal group) or a basal-bolus regimen with glargine once daily and rapid-acting insulin lispro or aspart before meals (the basal-bolus group) during the hospital stay. All other antidiabetic drugs were discontinued on admission. The randomisation was achieved by computer-generated tables with block stratification according to randomisation blood glucose concentrations (ie, higher or lower than 11·1 mmol/L). The primary endpoint of the trial was non-inferiority in mean differences between groups in their daily blood glucose concentrations during the first 10 days of therapy (point-of-care measurements; non-inferiority was deemed a difference <1 mmol/L). The safety endpoints included hypoglycaemia and uncontrolled hyperglycaemia leading to treatment failure. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01845831. FINDINGS: Between Aug 23, 2013, and July 27, 2015, we recruited 279 patients, and randomly assigned 277 to treatment; 138 to sitagliptin-basal and 139 to basal-bolus. The length of stay in hospital was similar for both groups (median 4 days [IQR 3-8] vs 4 [3-8] days, p=0·54). The mean daily blood glucose concentration in the sitagliptin-basal group (9·5 mmol/L [SD 2·7]) was not inferior to that in the basal-bolus group 9·4 mmol/L [2·7]) with a mean blood glucose difference of 0·1 mmol/L (95% CI -0·6 to 0·7). No deaths occurred in this trial. Treatment failure occurred in 22 patients (16%) in the sitagliptin-basal group versus 26 (19%) in the basal-bolus group (p=0·54). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 13 patients (9%) in the sitagliptin-basal group and in 17 (12%) in the basal-bolus group (p=0·45). No differences in hospital complications were noted between groups. Seven patients (5%) developed acute kidney injury in the sitagliptin-basal group and six (4%) in the basal-bolus group. One patient (0·7%) developed acute pancreatitis (in the basal-bolus group). INTERPRETATION: The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, because there was no significant difference between groups in mean daily blood glucose concentrations. Treatment with sitagliptin plus basal insulin is as effective and safe as, and a convenient alternative to, the labour-intensive basal-bolus insulin regimen for the management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to general medicine and surgery services in hospital in the non-intensive-care setting. FUNDING: Merck.

Neurologic complications of Paget disease of bone.

OBJECTIVE: To review the epidemiology, evaluation, and management of the neurologic complications associated with Paget disease of bone (PDB). METHODS: We reviewed the English-language medical literature using MEDLINE data sources from 1950 to August 2008 and manually searched cross-references from original articles and reviews. Search terms included "Paget* disease of bone" and "neurologic* complications," "cranial nerve," "spinal cord," or "peripheral nerve." RESULTS: Several neurologic problems in the central and peripheral nervous systems may complicate PDB. Up to 76% of patients may have some form of neurologic involvement. Neurologic complications can occur in patients with a long history of PDB as well as in patients with previously unrecognized disease. The primary mechanisms of nerve damage in PDB involving the spine are ischemic myelitis and compression due to bone hypertrophy. Evaluation includes determining the serum alkaline phosphatase level and imaging by radiography, bone scintigraphy, computed tomographic scanning, and, for lesions of the central nervous system, magnetic resonance imaging. If a soft-tissue mass is found, biopsy should be considered to exclude the presence of sarcoma. Treatment strategies include calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonates, and possibly surgical intervention for refractory cases. CONCLUSION: Neurologic sequelae of PDB may be underappreciated. Despite the paucity of data guiding treatment, zoledronic acid is a reasonable first-line therapy. Lack of response to treatment or relapse should prompt diagnostic reevaluation with a heightened suspicion for tumor.

Diabetes knowledge: are resident physicians and nurses adequately prepared to manage diabetes?

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the diabetes knowledge of nurses and residents in surgery, internal medicine, and family practice. METHODS: A 21-question survey based on current diabetes standards of care was developed and administered. The results were stratified by type of participant and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: A total of 52 internal medicine residents (IMR), 21 family practice residents (FPR), 42 surgery residents (SR), and 48 registered nurses (RN) participated. The survey had good overall internal consistency (Cronbach a of 0.78) and test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.71). The total mean percent correct for all participants was 61%. The total scores of IMR, FPR, and RN groups were similar (69%, 64%, and 66%) and significantly greater (P<0.001) than the SR score (44%). Collectively, all survey participants averaged less than 50% correct on several items. The IMR scored higher than the SR and FPR on several items. The nurses outscored the physicians on items regarding insulin preparations, treatment of hypoglycemia, and perioperative insulin management. A subgroup of 13 RN with additional diabetes training earned the highest total score (82%). CONCLUSION: Our novel survey was shown to be a statistically valid tool for assessment of diabetes knowledge. IMR, FPR, and inpatient RN have similar but insufficient levels of knowledge about diabetes. SR may have a more profound deficit of diabetes knowledge. Previous additional diabetes training among nurses was associated with greater diabetes knowledge. Most nurses and residents require additional education in order to provide optimal care to patients with diabetes.