Retrospective Review on the Safety and Efficacy of Nitrofurantoin for the Treatment of Cystitis in the Veteran Population With or Without Renal Insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of antimicrobial resistance in uropathogens has generated interest in the use of nitrofurantoin in controversial populations, such as in males and those with renal dysfunction. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of nitrofurantoin for the treatment of cystitis in males and females with variable degrees of renal dysfunction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted in adult patients who received nitrofurantoin for acute cystitis in the outpatient setting. The primary outcome was clinical cure compared between males and females and across various renal function groups (creatinine clearances [CrCl] >60 mL/min, 30-60 mL/min, and <30 mL/min) following nitrofurantoin treatment. The secondary outcome was adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients were included, with 278 females and 168 males. The overall clinical cure rate was 86.5% (95% CI, 83.0%-89.4%; n = 386). The clinical cure rate did not vary between genders (odds ratio [OR], 0.6; 95% CI 0.35-1.04; P = .085) or between patients with a CrCl >60 mL/min compared with those with CrCl 30-60 mL/min (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.40-2.44; P = 1). The 1 patient with a CrCl <30 mL/min was not included in the analysis. A history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26-0.99; P = .045) or cirrhosis (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.82; P = .025) was associated with decreased odds of clinical cure. Adverse events occurred in 2% (n = 9) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference in clinical cure with nitrofurantoin between genders or various renal functions.

Retrospective Review on the Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Warfarin in Patients With Cirrhosis.

PURPOSE: Patients with cirrhosis needing anticoagulation therapy have historically been prescribed warfarin. New retrospective research has concluded that in patients with cirrhosis direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have similar or lower bleeding rates compared with that of warfarin. This study compares the safety and efficacy of DOACs with that of warfarin in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted in adult patients with cirrhosis taking either apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients prescribed triple antithrombotic therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) and indications other than nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The primary endpoint was all-cause bleeding, and the secondary endpoints were failed efficacy and major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2005. Failed efficacy was a combination endpoint including the development of VTE, stroke, myocardial infarction and/or death. Patient data were collected from the Computerized Patient Record System from October 31, 2014 to October 31, 2018. RESULTS: The study included 42 patients in the DOAC group and 37 patients in the warfarin group. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups except for the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, international normalized ratio, and number of days on anticoagulation therapy. The rate of all-cause bleeding in the DOAC group was 16.7% (n = 7) vs 21.6% (n = 8) in the warfarin group (P = .7). The rate of major bleeding in the DOAC group was 2.4% (n = 1) vs 5.4% (n = 2) in the warfarin group (P = .6). The rate of failed efficacy in the DOAC group was 7.1% (n = 3) compared with 8.1% (n = 3) in the warfarin group (P = .9). Subgroup analysis of allcause bleeding did not identify any significant trends between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences identified between the rates of all-cause bleeding, major bleeding, and failed efficacy between the DOACs and warfarin groups. DOACs may be a safe alternative to warfarin in patients with cirrhosis requiring anticoagulation for NVAF or VTE, but large randomized trials are required to confirm these results.

Effects of the addition of acarbose to insulin and non-insulin regimens in veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to assess the mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) when acarbose was added to insulin and non-insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the discontinuation rate of acarbose, and to assess the number of patients who were placed on insulin despite the addition of acarbose. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on veterans with T2DM initiated on acarbose between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. To be included, patients must have had a refill history indicating at least 3 months of acarbose use and HbA1c readings within 6 months prior to initiation and after at least 3 months of use. Excluded patients were those with type 1 diabetes mellitus, serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL at acarbose initiation, or a diagnosis based on ICD-9 codes for an existing gastrointestinal condition or liver cirrhosis. The two-tailed, paired t-test was used for analysis of the primary objective and descriptive statistics were used for all other outcomes. Results: Of the 146 patients screened, 102 patients were included in the study. Exclusions were primarily due to patients not being on acarbose for at least 3 months (n=43). The average HbA1c before and after acarbose initiation was 9.08% (SD=1.74) and 8.43% (SD=1.74) respectively, with an average HbA1c reduction of 0.65% (n=102, p=0.0005). Forty patients (39.2%) discontinued acarbose after at least 3 months of use. Of the 73 patients not on insulin at the time of acarbose initiation, 19 (26%) were started on insulin therapy despite addition of acarbose. Conclusion: Acarbose can be considered in patients who may reach their HbA1c goal with minimal HbA1c reduction. However, adverse effects are a limitation to use. Potential risks and benefits should be assessed and discussed with the patient prior to prescribing acarbose (AU)

No disponible

Effects of the addition of acarbose to insulin and non-insulin regimens in veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to assess the mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) when acarbose was added to insulin and non-insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the discontinuation rate of acarbose, and to assess the number of patients who were placed on insulin despite the addition of acarbose. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on veterans with T2DM initiated on acarbose between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. To be included, patients must have had a refill history indicating at least 3 months of acarbose use and HbA1c readings within 6 months prior to initiation and after at least 3 months of use. Excluded patients were those with type 1 diabetes mellitus, serum creatinine ≥2 mg/dL at acarbose initiation, or a diagnosis based on ICD-9 codes for an existing gastrointestinal condition or liver cirrhosis. The two-tailed, paired t-test was used for analysis of the primary objective and descriptive statistics were used for all other outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 146 patients screened, 102 patients were included in the study. Exclusions were primarily due to patients not being on acarbose for at least 3 months (n=43). The average HbA1c before and after acarbose initiation was 9.08% (SD=1.74) and 8.43% (SD=1.74) respectively, with an average HbA1c reduction of 0.65% (n=102, p=0.0005). Forty patients (39.2%) discontinued acarbose after at least 3 months of use. Of the 73 patients not on insulin at the time of acarbose initiation, 19 (26%) were started on insulin therapy despite addition of acarbose. CONCLUSION: Acarbose can be considered in patients who may reach their HbA1c goal with minimal HbA1c reduction. However, adverse effects are a limitation to use. Potential risks and benefits should be assessed and discussed with the patient prior to prescribing acarbose.