Managing IBD in the COVID-19 era.

Over the last 2 years the lives of millions have changed because of the emergence of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) represent a sizable population with their own sets of challenges to providers in the wake of so much uncertainty. The Centers for Disease Control considers immunocompromised individuals at higher risk of infection and complications from COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, the specific risks for IBD patients were unclear as guidance was based on expert opinion regarding the management of IBD during a COVID-19 era. Fortunately, after considerable work in the field, the overwhelming evidence suggests that IBD patients as a whole do not appear to be at increased risk for more severe disease from COVID-19. Certain risk factors such as age, steroids, comorbidities, combination immunomodulatory therapy, and IBD disease activity have been associated with worse outcomes. Most IBD medications are low risk, with the exception of immunomodulator monotherapy and combination therapy with thiopurine and anti-TNF. Vaccination remains safe and effective for all IBD patients, although additional booster doses may be necessary, particularly in patients taking anti-TNF agents.

Midgut Volvulus in a Pregnant Patient Presenting With Abdominal Pain.

Abdominal pain is a common symptom during pregnancy, but bowel obstruction as the cause is a rare phenomenon. Moreover, intestinal volvulus is an even more unusual cause of obstruction during pregnancy and normally involves the sigmoid colon. We report a unique case of midgut volvulus in a pregnant patient entering her third trimester who presented to the hospital with abdominal pain. Our case demonstrates the safety of computed topography in pregnancy while restricting radiation dose and highlights the need to have a high index of suspicion for bowel obstruction when approaching a pregnant patient with abdominal pain.

Part 2: Disease of the Heart and Liver: A Relationship That Cuts Both Ways.

Diseases known to affect both the heart and liver include a variety of infectious, autoimmune, and metabolic disorders, as well as toxins: most commonly alcohol. As damage to both the heart and liver progresses, transplantation is a reasonable therapeutic option. Heart failure patients with underlying congestive hepatopathy receiving cardiac transplant have demonstrated improved liver enzyme levels posttransplant. Patients with severe end-stage liver disease requiring a liver transplant must undergo careful preoperative evaluation as surgical stress exposes the myocardium to high levels of catecholamines. Clinicians must consider both cardiac and hepatic complications when evaluating heart failure, cirrhosis, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In Part 2 of this review, we discuss new noninvasive techniques for assessing liver fibrosis in the preoperative stage. Both serum and radiologic studies, such as transient elastography, have begun to take the place of liver biopsy due to their decreased morbidity. Last, we explore the current research examining the benefit of combined heart-liver transplant, although more longitudinal outcome studies are needed.

Part 1: Disease of the Heart and Liver: A Relationship That Cuts Both Ways.

The heart and the liver display multifaceted, complex interactions that can be divided into cardiac effects of liver disease, hepatic effects of heart disease, and disease processes affecting both organs. In part 1 of this 2 part series, we discuss how acute and chronic heart failure can have devastating effects on the liver, such as acute cardiogenic liver injury and congestive hepatopathy. On the other hand, primary liver disease, such as cirrhosis, can lead to a plethora of cardiac insults representative in cirrhotic cardiomyopathy as systolic dysfunction, diastolic dysfunction, and electrophysiological disturbances. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease has long been associated with cardiovascular events that increase mortality. The management of both disease processes changes when the other organ system becomes involved. This consideration is important with regard to a variety of interventions, most notably transplantation of either organ, as risk of complications dramatically rises in the setting of both heart and liver disease (discussed in part 2). As our understanding of the intricate communication between the heart and liver continues to expand so does our management.

The development and comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered prostate biopsy report: a prospective, randomized study.

PURPOSE: The prostate biopsy pathology report represents a critical document used for decision-making in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, yet the content exceeds the health literacy of most patients. We sought to create and compare the effectiveness of a patient-centered prostate biopsy report compared with standard reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a modified Delphi approach, prostate cancer experts identified critical components of a prostate biopsy report. Patient focus groups provided input for syntax and formatting of patient-centered pathology reports. Ninety-four patients with recent prostate biopsies were block randomized to the standard report with or without the patient-centered report. We evaluated patient activation, self-efficacy, provider communication skills, and prostate cancer knowledge. RESULTS: Experts selected primary and secondary Gleason score and the number of positive scores as the most important elements of the report. Patients prioritized a narrative design, non-threatening language and information on risk classification. Initial assessments were completed by 87% (40/46) in the standard report group and 81% (39/48) in the patient-centered report group. There were no differences in patient activation, self-efficacy, or provider communication skills between groups. Patients who received the patient-centered report had significantly improved ability to recall their Gleason score (100% vs. 85%, p = 0.026) and number of positive cores (90% vs. 65%, p = 0.014). In total, 86% of patients who received the patient-centered report felt that it helped them better understand their results and should always be provided. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered pathology reports are associated with significantly higher knowledge about a prostate cancer diagnosis. These important health information documents may improve patient-provider communication and help facilitate shared decision-making among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer.