Domperidone Prescribing Practices Exposed Patients to Cardiac Risk despite a "Black Box" Warning: A Canadian Tertiary Care Center Study.

Background. In 2012, Health Canada released a warning regarding domperidone use, based on associations with life-threatening arrhythmias and death. Objective. This study aimed to compare the appropriateness of domperidone prescribing patterns before the advisory to those afterward. Methods. Two retrospective reviews were conducted for patients prescribed domperidone during quarters in 2005 and 2012. Outcomes included appropriateness of indication, dosing regimens, monitoring of electrolytes, baseline electrocardiogram performance and characteristics, presence of left ventricular dysfunction, and coprescription of QT-prolonging medications. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results. 290 and 287 patients were analyzed in 2005 and 2012, respectively. Domperidone initiation in hospital decreased from 2005 to 2012 (71.4% versus 39.4%, p < 0.0001) as did prescriptions for nonapproved indications (84.8% versus 58.2%, p < 0.0001). In-hospital initiation predicted prescription for nonapproved indications (OR = 7.01, 95% CI 4.52-10.87, p < 0.0001). Use of domperidone as the sole GI drug predicted nonapproved indications (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.38-4.55, p = 0.002). Conclusions. The advisory was associated with more appropriate domperidone initiation and compliance with recommended dosages. Our study suggests the need for increased awareness of the dosing and monitoring of domperidone to ensure patient safety.

Gastrocolic Fistula: A Shortcut through the Gut.

Gastrocolic fistulas are observed in association with several conditions. Traditionally, peptic ulcer disease was commonly implicated in the formation of gastrocolic fistulas; however, this is now a rare etiology. Here, we present a case of gastrocolic fistula secondary to peptic ulcer disease alone, in addition to reviewing the literature and providing options for diagnosis and treatment.

Anti-TNFα therapies are safe during pregnancy in women with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of TNFα antagonists is well described for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but their safety profile during pregnancy is yet to be fully elucidated. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to identify studies that explored the safety of anti-TNFα therapy during pregnancy in patients with IBD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies that investigated the pregnancy outcomes among women with IBD on anti-TNFα therapy. The primary outcome was the overall rate of unfavourable pregnancy-related outcomes among women with IBD on anti-TNFα therapy. Secondary outcomes included rates of abortions (spontaneous or elective), preterm delivery, low birth weight, and congenital malformations. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. Eligible studies used an observational or interventional design, enrolled subjects with IBD on anti-TNFα therapy for at least 1 trimester and compared outcomes with appropriately matched controls. RESULTS: Overall, 5 studies with a total of 1216 participants were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the rates of total unfavourable pregnancy outcomes between pregnant women with IBD who were on anti-TNFα therapy and controls not on anti-TNFα therapy (OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.72-1.41]). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in the rates of abortion (OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.97-2.41]), preterm birth (OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.62-1.62]), low birth weight (OR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.62-1.78]), or congenital malformation (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.58-2.09]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of anti-TNFα therapy does not seem to increase the risk of unfavorable pregnancy outcomes among women with IBD, although the optimal timing of therapy through pregnancy and the postpartum period was not assessed in this analysis. These data can help counsel patients around family planning and perinatal management.

Fecal occult blood testing as a diagnostic test in symptomatic patients is not useful: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: The fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a screening tool designed for the early detection of colorectal cancer in primary care. Although not validated for use in hospitalized patients, it is often used by hospital physicians for reasons other than asymptomatic screening. OBJECTIVE: To profile the in-hospital use of the FOBT and assess its impact on patient care. METHODS: Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed for all FOBTs conducted over a three-month period in 2011 by the central laboratory supporting the three acute care campuses of Hamilton Health Sciences (Hamilton, Ontario). RESULTS: A total of 229 patients underwent 351 tests; 52% were female and the mean age was 49 years (range one to 104 years). A total of 80 (34.9%) patients had at least one positive test. The most common indications for testing were anemia (51.0%) and overt gastrointestinal bleeding (19.2%). Only one patient had testing performed for asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening. In only 20 (8.7%) cases medications were modified before testing and diet was modified in only 21 (9.2%) cases. Most patients (85.2%) were taking one or more medications that could result in a false-positive result. Only 18 (7.9%) patients had a digital rectal examinations documented, of which seven were positive. All patients with a positive digital rectal examination underwent endoscopic procedures that revealed a source of bleeding. Among 44 patients with overt gastrointestinal bleeding, 12 (27.3%) had endoscopic investigations delayed to await results of the FOBT. Four patients were referred despite a negative FOBT due to a high degree of suspicion of gastrointestinal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The FOBT is often used inappropriately in the hospital setting. Confounding factors, such as diet and medication use, which may lead to false positives, are often ignored. Use of the FOBT in-hospital may lead to inappropriate management of patients, increased length of stay and increased direct medical costs. Use of the FOBT should be limited to validated indications only.