-
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Aug 2023The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in the outpatient setting. However, undercarriage and underuse of EAIs are common, and delayed epinephrine use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals have expressed a strong desire for small, needle-free devices and products that would offer improved carriage, ease of use, and more convenient, less invasive routes of epinephrine administration. Novel mechanisms of epinephrine administration are under investigation to help address several recognized EAI limitations. This review explores innovative nasal and oral products under investigation for the outpatient emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.
FINDINGS
Human studies of epinephrine administered through nasal epinephrine spray, a nasal powder spray, and a sublingual film have been conducted. Data from these studies indicate promising pharmacokinetic results comparable to those of the standard of outpatient emergency care (0.3-mg EAI) and syringe and needle IM epinephrine administration. Several products have shown maximum plasma concentration values higher than those of the 0.3-mg EAI and manual IM injection, although it remains unclear whether this has clinical relevancy in patient outcomes. Generally, these modalities show comparable time to maximum concentrations. Pharmacodynamic changes observed with these products are comparable to or more robust than those seen with EAI and manual IM injection.
SUMMARY
Given comparable or superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results and safety of innovative epinephrine therapies to those of current standards of care, US Food and Drug Administration approval of these products may help address numerous barriers that EAIs present. The ease of use and carriage and favorable safety profiles of needle-free treatments may make them an attractive alternative to patients and caregivers, potentially addressing injection fears, needle-based safety risks, and other reasons for lack of or delayed use.
Topics: Humans; Anaphylaxis; Epinephrine; Injections, Intramuscular; Emergency Medical Services; Outpatients
PubMed: 37279803
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2023.05.033 -
Psychiatrische Praxis Mar 2024
Topics: Humans; Outpatients; Germany; Ambulatory Care; Psychotic Disorders; Crime
PubMed: 38442868
DOI: 10.1055/a-2206-3781 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Jul 2023Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an approved CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy for relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies. Given potentially... (Review)
Review
Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an approved CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy for relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies. Given potentially life-threatening toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, inpatient tisa-cel infusion and toxicity monitoring are often considered; however, the toxicity profile of tisa-cel may be conducive to outpatient administration. Here we review the characteristics and outcomes of tisa-cel recipients treated in the outpatient setting. Patients age ≥18 years with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received tisa-cel between June 25, 2018, and January 22, 2021, at 9 US academic medical centers were included in a retrospective analysis. Six of the 9 representative centers (75%) had an outpatient program in place. A total of 157 patients were evaluable, including 93 (57%) in the outpatient treatment group and 64 (43%) in the inpatient treatment group. Baseline characteristics, toxicity and efficacy, and resource utilization were summarized. The most common lymphodepletion (LD) regimen was bendamustine in the outpatient group (65%) and fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (91%) in the inpatient group. The outpatient group had more patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 0 (51% versus 15%; P < .001), fewer patients with an elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level above the normal range at the time of LD (32% versus 57%, P = .003) compared to the inpatient group, and a lower Endothelial Activation and Stress Index score (.57 versus 1.4; P < .001). Any-grade CRS and ICANS were lower in the outpatient group (29% versus 56% [P < .001] and 10% versus 16% [P = .051], respectively). Forty-two outpatient tisa-cel recipients (45%) required an unplanned admission, with a median length of stay of 5 days (range, 1 to 27 days), compared to 13 days (range, 4 to 38 days) in the inpatient group. The median number of tocilizumab doses administered was similar in the 2 groups as were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) transfer (5% versus 8%; P = .5) and median length of ICU stay (6 days versus 5 days; P = .7). There were no toxicity-related deaths in the 30 days post-CAR-T infusion in either group. Progression-free survival and overall survival were similar in the 2 groups. With careful patient selection, outpatient tisa-cel administration is feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment. Outpatient toxicity monitoring and management may help optimize healthcare resource utilization.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Outpatients; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Carcinoma; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin
PubMed: 37120134
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.04.019 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Oct 2023Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2.
PURPOSE
To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments.
DATA SOURCES
The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION
One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified.
LIMITATION
Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only.
CONCLUSION
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).
Topics: Humans; Outpatients; Ritonavir; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Retrospective Studies; Physicians; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 37722115
DOI: 10.7326/M23-1626 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Sep 2023Rehabilitation post-knee arthroplasty is integral to regaining knee function and ensuring patients' overall well-being. The debate over the relative effectiveness and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rehabilitation post-knee arthroplasty is integral to regaining knee function and ensuring patients' overall well-being. The debate over the relative effectiveness and safety of outpatient versus home-based rehabilitation persists.
METHODS
A thorough literature review was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines across four databases. Two researchers independently identified eligible studies centering on knee arthroplasty patients undergoing either outpatient or home-based rehabilitation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, while continuous outcomes were subject to meta-analyses using Stata 17 software.
RESULTS
Our analysis identified no significant differences in primary outcomes, including Range of Motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Score, between home-based and outpatient rehabilitation across different follow-up points. Adverse reactions, readmission rates, the need for manipulation under anesthesia, reoperation rate, and post-surgery complications were also similar between both groups. Home-based rehabilitation demonstrated cost-effectiveness, resulting in substantial annual savings. Furthermore, quality of life and patient satisfaction were found to be comparable in both rehabilitation methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Home-based rehabilitation post-knee arthroplasty appears as an effective, safe, and cost-efficient alternative to outpatient rehabilitation. Despite these findings, further multicenter, long-term randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings and provide robust evidence to inform early rehabilitation choices post-knee arthroplasty.
Topics: Humans; Outpatients; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Quality of Life; Knee Joint; Anesthesia; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37726800
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04160-2 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Sep 2023The aging population and the obesity epidemic have led to an increased rate of joint arthroplasty procedures, specifically total knee arthroplasty and total hip... (Review)
Review
The aging population and the obesity epidemic have led to an increased rate of joint arthroplasty procedures, specifically total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. These surgeries are associated with increased hospital length of stay and, consequently, higher costs. Despite the benefits of outpatient surgery, only a small percentage of total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) are done in this manner. We reviewed the most up-to-date trends for outpatient TJA and discussed essential factors for a successful outpatient program, including the proper patient selection process and best available anesthetic and analgesic options, along with their risks and benefits. Risk stratification tools, such as the Outpatient Arthroplasty Risk Assessment, are helpful for predicting outcomes regarding outpatient TJA, and neuraxial anesthesia should be considered to minimize complications and facilitate early discharge. A multimodal analgesia regimen could be effective for pain management in outpatient TJA, and the currently recommended peripheral nerve blocks for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are the fascia iliaca compartment block and adductor canal block, respectively. However, blocks should be carefully considered for outpatient procedures. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols help to guide perioperative care teams and allow for improved patient recovery, decreased length of stay, and increased patient satisfaction.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Outpatients; Anesthesiology; Analgesics; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Anesthesia, Conduction
PubMed: 37669101
DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00259 -
Pain Physician Nov 2023Telemedicine is an increasingly important tool in outpatient pain management. Telemedicine can be implemented through various strategies and a multitude of approaches... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Telemedicine is an increasingly important tool in outpatient pain management. Telemedicine can be implemented through various strategies and a multitude of approaches have been described in existing literature.
OBJECTIVES
This scoping review aims to survey how telemedicine has been approached in published literature, providing insight for continued implementation.
STUDY DESIGN
Scoping review.
SETTING
Outpatient pain management.
METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried. Two board-certified pain management physicians screened search results for relevant publications based on predetermined criteria. Included publications focused on outpatient pain management via live video or telephone and reported empirical outcomes. Publications were excluded that focused on acute pain, progressive muscle relaxation, physical therapy, or psychiatry, including cognitive behavioral therapy, or that primarily described educational modules, apps, mobile tracking, or automated calls. Nonfull publications (abstracts) and articles not available in English were also excluded. A third reviewer performed full-text screening, extracting variables of interest. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded from final selection.
RESULTS
Text and abstract screening of 3,302 results yielded 88 publications. Upon full-text screening, 64 additional publications were excluded, yielding 24 publications. High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were described in 5 (21%) publications, pilot RCTs in 4 (17%), prospective studies in 1 (4%), retrospective studies in 5 (21%), survey-based studies in 7 (29%), and other types of studies in 2 (8%). Cancer pain was the focus of 3 (13%) studies, headache/facial pain the focus of 4 (17%), musculoskeletal the focus of 3 (13%), and unspecified chronic pain the focus of 14 (58%). Patient experiences were the focus of 18 (75%) publications, provider experiences the focus of 2 (8%), and both patient and provider experiences the focus of 4 (17%). Outcome improvement measures were studied in 17 (71%) publications, process improvement measures in 5 (21%), and both types of measures in 2 (8%). Standard visits without on-site support were described in 4 (17%) publications, while standard visits with on-site support were described in 9 (38%). The remaining 11 (46%) described structured/integrated pain management programs. Positive pain-related outcomes were reported in 9 (38%) studies. Increased access or decreased barriers to care were reported in 9 (38%). Patient satisfaction was reported in 12 (50%) publications, with 10 (42%) describing positive results.
LIMITATIONS
This scoping review focused on telemedicine delivered via telephone or live video communication, excluding a substantial body of literature focused on virtual courses, modules, and other telehealth programs not involving live communication.
CONCLUSIONS
Current literature describes telemedicine implementation with various levels of technological and logistical support. Models of telemedicine represented in current literature include: standard visits with on-site support, standard visits without on-site support, and structured/integrated pain management programs. Presently, no literature has directly compared outcomes from these different approaches. Choice of model will depend on the specific goals and available resources. Patient satisfaction was studied most frequently and generally demonstrated positive results. Though current literature is heterogeneous and lacks RCTs, it consistently demonstrates benefits of telemedicine to patient satisfaction, pain, and access to care.
Topics: Humans; Outpatients; Chronic Pain; Patient Satisfaction; Headache; Telemedicine
PubMed: 37976479
DOI: No ID Found -
Diabetes Care Dec 2023The glycemic control of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in outpatient children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has not been systematically evaluated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The glycemic control of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in outpatient children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) has not been systematically evaluated.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in children and adolescents in outpatient settings.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until 4 May 2023. This study was registered with PROSPERO (2023, CRD42023395252).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized controlled trials that compared AID systems with conventional insulin therapy in outpatient children and adolescents with T1D and reported continuous glucose monitoring outcomes were selected.
DATA EXTRACTION
Percent time in range (TIR) (3.9-10 mmol/L), time below range (TBR) (<3.9 mmol/L), and time above range (TAR) (>10 mmol/L) were extracted. Data were summarized as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-five trials (1,345 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. AID systems were associated with an increased percentage of TIR (MD, 11.38% [95% CI 9.01-13.76], P < 0.001; high certainty). The favorable effect was consistent whether AID was used over 3 months (10.46% [8.71-12.20]) or 6 months (10.87% [7.11-14.63]). AID systems had a favorable effect on the proportion of TBR (-0.59% [-1.02 to -0.15], P = 0.008; low certainty) or TAR (-12.19% [-14.65 to -9.73], P < 0.001; high certainty) compared with control treatment.
LIMITATIONS
Substantial heterogeneity was observed in most analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
AID systems are more effective than conventional insulin therapy for children and adolescents with T1D in outpatient settings. The favorable effect is consistent both in the short term and long term.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Outpatients; Blood Glucose; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Insulin
PubMed: 38011519
DOI: 10.2337/dc23-0504 -
PLoS Medicine Jun 2023Antibiotic resistance is a global public health issue, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where antibiotics required to treat resistant infections...
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic resistance is a global public health issue, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where antibiotics required to treat resistant infections are not affordable. LMICs also bear a disproportionately high burden of bacterial diseases, particularly among children, and resistance jeopardizes progress made in these areas. Although outpatient antibiotic use is a major driver of antibiotic resistance, data on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing in LMICs are scarce at the community level, where the majority of prescribing occurs. Here, we aimed to characterize inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among young outpatient children and to identify its determinants in 3 LMICs.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We used data from a prospective, community-based mother-and-child cohort (BIRDY, 2012 to 2018) conducted across urban and rural sites in Madagascar, Senegal, and Cambodia. Children were included at birth and followed-up for 3 to 24 months. Data from all outpatient consultations and antibiotics prescriptions were recorded. We defined inappropriate prescriptions as antibiotics prescribed for a health event determined not to require antibiotic therapy (antibiotic duration, dosage, and formulation were not considered). Antibiotic appropriateness was determined a posteriori using a classification algorithm developed according to international clinical guidelines. We used mixed logistic analyses to investigate risk factors for antibiotic prescription during consultations in which children were determined not to require antibiotics. Among the 2,719 children included in this analysis, there were 11,762 outpatient consultations over the follow-up period, of which 3,448 resulted in antibiotic prescription. Overall, 76.5% of consultations resulting in antibiotic prescription were determined not to require antibiotics, ranging from 71.5% in Madagascar to 83.3% in Cambodia. Among the 10,416 consultations (88.6%) determined not to require antibiotic therapy, 25.3% (n = 2,639) nonetheless resulted in antibiotic prescription. This proportion was much lower in Madagascar (15.6%) than in Cambodia (57.0%) or Senegal (57.2%) (p < 0.001). Among the consultations determined not to require antibiotics, in both Cambodia and Madagascar the diagnoses accounting for the greatest absolute share of inappropriate prescribing were rhinopharyngitis (59.0% of associated consultations in Cambodia, 7.9% in Madagascar) and gastroenteritis without evidence of blood in the stool (61.6% and 24.6%, respectively). In Senegal, uncomplicated bronchiolitis accounted for the greatest number of inappropriate prescriptions (84.4% of associated consultations). Across all inappropriate prescriptions, the most frequently prescribed antibiotic was amoxicillin in Cambodia and Madagascar (42.1% and 29.2%, respectively) and cefixime in Senegal (31.2%). Covariates associated with an increased risk of inappropriate prescription include patient age greater than 3 months (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) ranged across countries from 1.91 [1.63, 2.25] to 5.25 [3.85, 7.15], p < 0.001) and living in rural as opposed to urban settings (aOR ranged across countries from 1.83 [1.57, 2.14] to 4.40 [2.34, 8.28], p < 0.001). Diagnosis with a higher severity score was also associated with an increased risk of inappropriate prescription (aOR = 2.00 [1.75, 2.30] for moderately severe, 3.10 [2.47, 3.91] for most severe, p < 0.001), as was consultation during the rainy season (aOR = 1.32 [1.19, 1.47], p < 0.001). The main limitation of our study is the lack of bacteriological documentation, which may have resulted in some diagnosis misclassification and possible overestimation of inappropriate antibiotic prescription.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we observed extensive inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among pediatric outpatients in Madagascar, Senegal, and Cambodia. Despite great intercountry heterogeneity in prescribing practices, we identified common risk factors for inappropriate prescription. This underscores the importance of implementing local programs to optimize antibiotic prescribing at the community level in LMICs.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Child; Infant; Cohort Studies; Inappropriate Prescribing; Outpatients; Developing Countries; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Prospective Studies; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 37279198
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004211 -
Annals of Medicine Dec 2023Although the costs of bipolar disorder (BD) treatments are associated with local and universal factors, data from non-Western countries remain limited. The associations...
BACKGROUND
Although the costs of bipolar disorder (BD) treatments are associated with local and universal factors, data from non-Western countries remain limited. The associations between clinical features and costs of outpatient pharmacotherapy have not been well characterize. To estimate the costs of outpatient BD treatments and their associations with clinical features in a Japanese population, we investigated with special reference to the costs of medicines constituted the bulk of the total healthcare expense and were steadily increasing.
METHODS
The Multicenter Treatment Survey for Bipolar Disorder (MUSUBI) retrospectively evaluated 3130 patients with BD who visited 176 Japanese psychiatric outpatient clinics in 2016. Clinical features and drug prescriptions were recorded, and the total daily costs of psychotropic drug treatment were calculated. The annual medical costs related to outpatient BD treatments in Japan were estimated based on the corresponding demographics. The associations between daily medical costs and patients' clinical features were analyzed using multiple regression analysis.
RESULTS
The daily costs of psychotropic drugs ranged from zero to JPY3245 (mean, JPY349 equivalent to USD32.5) and were exponentially distributed. The annual costs for outpatients BD treatments were approximately 51.9 billion Japanese yens (519 million US dollars). Subsequent multiple regression analysis revealed that social adjustment, depressive symptoms, age, rapid cycling, psychotic symptoms, and comorbid mental disorders correlated strongly with the daily cost of psychotropic drugs.
CONCLUSION
The estimated annual costs for outpatient BD treatment in Japan were equivalent to those in OECD countries (except for the US) and higher than those in some Asian countries. The cost of psychotropic treatments was associated with individual characteristics and psychopathological conditions.Key MessagesPsychotropic treatment for an outpatient with bipolar disorder has a daily cost approximately JPY350.The annual outpatient treatment cost for bipolar disorder in Japan was estimated to 51.9 billion Japanese yen in 2016.Individual characteristics and psychopathological conditions affected the cost of drug treatment.
Topics: Humans; Bipolar Disorder; Outpatients; Retrospective Studies; Japan; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 37322994
DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2023.2224047