Research Spotlight

Posted January 15th 2019

Factors Associated with Survival of Patients With Severe Acute on Chronic Liver Failure Before and After Liver Transplantation.

Sumeet K. Asrani M.D.

Sumeet K. Asrani M.D.

Sundaram, V., R. Jalan, T. Wu, M. L. Volk, S. K. Asrani, A. S. Klein and R. J. Wong (2018). “Factors Associated with Survival of Patients With Severe Acute on Chronic Liver Failure Before and After Liver Transplantation.” Gastroenterology 2018 Dec 18. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver transplantation for patients with acute on chronic liver failure with 3 or more failing organs (ACLF-3) is controversial. We compared liver waitlist mortality or removal according to model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score vs ACLF category. We also studied factors associated with reduced odds of survival for 1 year after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF-3. METHODS: We analyzed data from the United Network for Organ Sharing from 2005 through 2016. We identified patients who were on the waitlist (100,594) and those who received liver transplants (50,552). Patients with ACLF were identified based on the EASL-CLIF criteria. Outcomes were evaluated with competing risks regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Patients with ACLF-3 were more likely to die or be removed from the waitlist, regardless of MELD-Na score, compared to the other ACLF groups; the proportion was greatest for patients with an ACLF-3 score and MELD-Na score below 25 (43.8% at 28 days). Mechanical ventilation at liver transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.22-1.84), donor risk index above 1.7 (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and liver transplantation within 30 days of listing (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98) were independently associated with survival for 1 year after liver transplantation CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, we found high mortality among patients with ACLF-3 on the liver transplant waitlist-even among those with lower MELD-Na scores. So, certain patients with ACLF-3 have poor outcomes regardless of MELD-Na score. Liver transplantation increases odds of survival for these patients, particularly if performed within 30 days of placement on the waitlist. Mechanical ventilation at liver transplantation and use of marginal organs were associated with increased risk of death.


Posted January 15th 2019

Proton Pump Inhibitors: What the Internist Needs to Know.

Stuart Spechler M.D.

Stuart Spechler M.D.

Spechler, S. J. (2019). “Proton Pump Inhibitors: What the Internist Needs to Know.” Med Clin North Am 103(1): 1-14.

Full text of this article.

This report reviews the physiology of gastric acid suppression by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and anti-inflammatory effects of PPIs that are independent of their acid-suppressive effects. Valid indications for PPI use are discussed, as are putative adverse effects of PPIs that have been identified through weak associations in observational studies that cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships. Although evidence supporting the validity of these adverse effects is weak, there is also insufficient evidence to dismiss the risks. The report emphasizes how PPIs frequently are prescribed inappropriately and encourages physicians to carefully consider the indication for PPI therapy in their patients.


Posted January 15th 2019

Inconsistencies with screening for traumatic brain injury in spinal cord injury across the continuum of care.

Seema R. Sikka, M.D.

Seema R. Sikka, M.D.

Sikka, S., A. Vrooman, L. Callender, D. Salisbury, M. Bennett, R. Hamilton and S. Driver (2019). “Inconsistencies with screening for traumatic brain injury in spinal cord injury across the continuum of care.” J Spinal Cord Med 42(1): 51-56.

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVE: Explore how traumatic brain injury (TBI) is screened among spinal cord injury (SCI) patients across the continuum of care. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review Setting: Emergency department, trauma, inpatient rehabilitation Participants: 325 patients with SCI from inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) between March 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 were screened. 49 eligible subjects had traumatic SCI and received care in adjoining acute care (AC) hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics and variables that capture diagnosis of TBI/SCI included documentation from ambulance, emergency department, AC, and IRF including ICD-9 codes, altered mental status, loss of consciousness (LOC), Glasgow Coma Score, Post Traumatic Amnesia (PTA), neuroimaging, and cognitive assessments. RESULTS: Participants were male (81%), white (55%), privately insured (49%), and aged 39.3+/-18.0 years with 51% paraplegic and 49% tetraplegic. Mechanisms of injury were gunshot wound (31%), fall (29%), and motor vehicle accident (20%). TBI occurred in 65% of SCI individuals, however documentation of identification of TBI, LOC, and CT imaging results varied in H&P, discharge notes, and ICD-9 codes across the continuum. Cognitive assessments were performed on 16% of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation showed variability between AC and IRF and among disciplines. Imaging and GCS were more consistently documented than LOC and PTA. It is necessary to standardize screening processes between AC and IRF to identify dual diagnosis.


Posted January 15th 2019

Influenza vaccine effectiveness among patients with high-risk medical conditions in the United States, 2012-2016.

Manjusha Gaglani M.D.

Manjusha Gaglani M.D.

Shang, M., J. R. Chung, M. L. Jackson, L. A. Jackson, A. S. Monto, E. T. Martin, E. A. Belongia, H. Q. McLean, M. Gaglani, K. Murthy, R. K. Zimmerman, M. P. Nowalk, A. M. Fry and B. Flannery (2018). “Influenza vaccine effectiveness among patients with high-risk medical conditions in the United States, 2012-2016.” Vaccine 36(52): 8047-8053.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Annual influenza vaccination has been recommended for persons with high-risk conditions since the 1960s. However, few estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) for persons with high-risk conditions are available. METHODS: Data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network from 2012 to 2016 were analyzed to compare VE of standard-dose inactivated vaccines against medically-attended influenza among patients aged >/=6months with and without high-risk medical conditions. Patients with acute respiratory illness were tested for influenza by RT-PCR. Presence of high-risk conditions and vaccination status were obtained from medical records. VE by influenza virus type/subtype and age group was calculated for patients with and without high-risk conditions using the test-negative design. Interaction terms were used to test for differences in VE by high-risk conditions. RESULTS: Overall, 9643 (38%) of 25,369 patients enrolled during four influenza seasons had high-risk conditions; 2213 (23%) tested positive for influenza infection. For all ages, VE against any influenza was lower among patients with high-risk conditions (41%, 95% CI: 35-47%) than those without (48%, 95% CI: 43-52%; P-for-interaction=0.02). For children aged <18years, VE against any influenza was 51% (95% CI: 39-61%) and 52% (95% CI: 39-61%) among those with and without high-risk conditions, respectively (P-for-interaction=0.54). For adults aged >/=18years, VE against any influenza was 38% (95% CI: 30-45%) and 44% (95% CI: 38-50%) among those with and without high-risk conditions, respectively (P-for-interaction=0.21). For both children aged <18 and adults aged >/=18years, VEs against illness related to influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza B virus infection were similar among those with and without high-risk conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination provided protection against medically-attended influenza among patients with high-risk conditions, at levels approaching those observed among patients without high-risk conditions. Results from our analysis support recommendations of annual vaccination for patients with high-risk conditions.


Posted January 15th 2019

The prognostic value of troponin T and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, alone and in combination, in heart failure patients with and without diabetes.

Milton Packer M.D.

Milton Packer M.D.

Rorth, R., P. S. Jhund, S. L. Kristensen, A. S. Desai, L. Kober, J. L. Rouleau, S. D. Solomon, K. Swedberg, M. R. Zile, M. Packer and J. J. V. McMurray (2018). “The prognostic value of troponin T and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, alone and in combination, in heart failure patients with and without diabetes.” Eur J Heart Fail Dec 10. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

AIMS: We examined the prognostic importance of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T (TnT) in heart failure patients with and without diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured NT-proBNP and TnT in the biomarker substudy of the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Of 1907 patients, 759 (40%) had diabetes. Median TnT in patients with diabetes was 18 (interquartile range 11-27) ng/L and 13 (9-21) ng/L in those without (P < 0.001). The TnT frequency-distribution curve was shifted to the right in patients with diabetes, compared to those without diabetes. By contrast, NT-proBNP did not differ between patients with and without diabetes. Diabetes and each biomarker were predictive of worse outcomes. Thus, patients with diabetes, an elevated TnT and a NT-proBNP level in the highest tertile (9% of all patients) had an absolute risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization of 265 per 1000 person-years, compared to a rate of 42 per 1000 person-years in those without diabetes, a TnT < 18 ng/L and a NT-proBNP in the lowest tertile (16% of all patients). TnT remained an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in multivariable analyses including NT-proBNP. CONCLUSION: TnT is elevated to a greater extent in heart failure patients with diabetes compared to those without (whereas NT-proBNP is not). TnT and NT-proBNP are additive in predicting risk and when combined help identify diabetes patients at extremely high absolute risk.