Winning the Battle after Three Years of Suffering: A Case of a Refractory Pyoderma Gangrenosum Treatment Challenge.

Pyoderma gangrenosum is an uncommon inflammatory disorder characterized by neutrophilic infiltration of the skin. It can present as skin papules or pustules that progress into painful ulcers. 30-40% of the cases are associated with other systemic diseases such as inflammatory bowel diseases, rheumatoid arthritis, and proliferative hematological disorders. Uniquely, this condition has been associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The rarity of this disorder poses a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. We present a case of a 55-year-old female with a history of SLE and chronic right leg ulcer, presented with increased pain from the ulcer associated with a mild flare of her cutaneous lupus; examination revealed circumferential skin ulcer measuring about 25 cm extending around the right leg above the ankle with prominent fibrinous material and surrounding erythema. Blood work showed elevated WBC with neutrophilic predominance. Serology revealed a positive ANA, elevated RNP, smith, and SSA/Ro antibodies with normal anti-CCP level. Skin biopsy was taken, and it showed a diffuse neutrophilic and lymphocytic infiltrate consistent with the diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosum. The patient was then treated with topical and systemic steroids and sequentially with dapsone, methotrexate, mycophenolate, and cyclosporine for over a two-year period but failed to show any improvement. Therefore, a trial of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy was attempted and produced a dramatic response after two-month infusions characterized by shrinking in the size of the ulcer and resolving pain. We believe that refractory PG poses a therapeutic challenge, and despite a lack of specific guidelines, IVIG can be attempted if initial suppressive treatment fails to show signs of improvement.

Evaluating the Improvement in Colonoscopy Quality Indicators Subsequent to Publication of Professional Society Guidelines.

Introduction  Quality metrics of colonoscopy should be routinely monitored with a focus on optimizing the patient's subsequent risk of colorectal cancer development. Documentation of bowel preparation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and post-colonoscopy follow-up recommendations are three of the most important quality indicators for colonoscopy, but significant improvement has been challenging to achieve. The goal of this study is to determine whether the publication of colonoscopy quality indicator guidelines in 2015 resulted in an improvement in quality measures of physicians in our endoscopy suite as compared to before. Methods  We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent a screening or surveillance colonoscopy in 2014 and 2017. Colonoscopies were performed in an open-access medical center endoscopy suite, staffed by three groups of physicians (academic gastroenterologists (AGs), non-academic gastroenterologists (non-AGs), and surgeons). We gathered demographic data, bowel preparation reports, follow-up recommendations, and notice to patient's primary care physician, and calculated ADR for patients. Age- and gender-matched patients in both years were analyzed for ADR. These data were further subcategorized for each group of physicians. Results  There were 553 patients in 2014 and 1,095 in 2017. Overall, male gender and African American race constituted the majority of patients in both years. Among age- and gender-matched patients in 2014 and 2017 (412 and 243 patients, respectively), ADR within each group of endoscopists was not significantly different between these two years (AGs 44% vs. 50%; non-AGs 32% vs. 27%; surgeons 25% vs. 21%; p>0.05 for all). However, in 2014 and 2017, ADR was significantly higher in the AG group as compared to the non-AG group and surgeons (p<0.006 and p<0.0004, respectively). Reporting of bowel preparation quality (82% vs. 87%) and documenting the recommended period for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy in the report (68% vs. 78%) improved between 2014 and 2017 (p=0.002 and p=0.0001, respectively). Correct recommendations for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy only improved significantly in the AG group (74% in 2014 as compared with 82% in 2017, p=0.003). Conclusion  Based on the current guidelines, AG physicians are far exceeding the target ADR goals, and are superior compared to other groups of endoscopists. Although improvements were noted after guideline publications, areas of needed improvement with respect to meeting gastroenterology society guidelines for quality remained. The fact that individual physicians are performing and billing in an endoscopy suite staffed and equipped by a medical center creates an environment where responsibility for improvement in quality cannot be readily assigned.

Role of Bowel Preparation in Adenoma Detection Rate and Follow-up Recommendations in African American Dominant Patient Population.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel preparation quality in colonoscopy is one of the most essential components of quality assessment. According to the latest guidelines, inadequate bowel preparation warrants repeat colonoscopy in less than a year. Our aim was to investigate the role of bowel preparation in adenoma detection rate (ADR), its relationship with patients' demographics, and compliance with subsequent surveillance recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review study. Bowel preparation quality was divided into three categories: high, intermediate, and low. ADR and polyp detection rates (PDR) were calculated as the number of patients with adenoma or polyp divided by the total number of patients. RESULTS: Among 1,062 patients (934 African American and 128 non-African American) 81%, 11%, and 8% had high, intermediate, and low-quality bowel preparations, respectively. Race, gender, age, type of endoscopist, and body mass index did not play any role in bowel preparation quality. ADR and PDR were significantly higher in African Americans as compared to non-African Americans. ADR was significantly lower in the low-quality as compared to the high- and intermediate-quality bowel preparations (OR=2.13; p=0.0032). Bowel preparation quality was not correlated with subsequent follow-up recommendations. Academic gastroenterologists and surgeons had the highest and lowest compliance with surveillance guidelines, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and gender disparity appears to have no meaningful effect on the quality of bowel preparation. Only two categories (adequate [high/intermediate] or inadequate [low-quality]) may be used for follow-up recommendations. Non-compliance with surveillance guidelines is concerning and may inadvertently increase the interval risk of colorectal cancer.

Primary care and referring physician perspectives on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease management: a nationwide survey.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal approach to screening and risk stratification for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is challenging given disease burden and variable progression. The aim of this study was to assess primary care physician and referring physician practice patterns regarding non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. METHODS: An anonymous nationwide survey was administered to primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists in a: (1) tertiary academic hospital, (2) community hospital, and (3) the American College of Physicians Insider Panel. Survey domains assessed non-alcoholic fatty liver disease knowledge, recommendations for screening, risk stratification, treatment, and referral patterns. RESULTS: A total of 440 providers completed the survey (35.2% completion rate; N = 82 academic hospital, N = 21 community hospital, N = 337 American College of Physicians). Half were male (51.7%), 78% from internal medicine, with 5% subspecialists. Providers were knowledgeable regarding prevalence and risk factors for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. 58% would support screening for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and used liver enzymes to do so. Only 22.5% used serum biomarkers and 23% used transient elastography for risk stratification. Primary reason for referral was advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. 80% reported barriers to treating non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. There was no consistent diet recommended. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide survey, we demonstrated that while overall disease knowledge was good, there was an important disconnect between current guidelines and real-world clinical practice. There is also significant heterogeneity in practice patterns for first-line therapy of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the majority of provider's report barriers to treating non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. These findings highlight the potential role for reevaluating screening and risk stratification recommendations in primary care to better align with needs in that setting.