Search

INTRODUCTION : The introduction and broad use of new immunosuppressive agents, including biologic agents and JAK inhibitors, have revolutionised treatment of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] in recent decades. With such immunosuppression, the potential for opportunistic infection is a key safety concern. [...]

BACKGROUND: There are data suggesting a link between proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and the development of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhotic patients with ascites; however, these data are controversial.OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of PPIs in cirrhotic patients with ascites is associated with an increased risk for SBP.METHODS: A retrospective case-control study (June 2004 to June 2010) was conducted at theCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréalin Montreal, Quebec. Fifty-one cirrhotic patients admitted with paracentesis-proven SBP (≥250 neutrophils/mm3), occurring within seven days of hospital admission, met the inclusion criteria. These patients were matched 1:2 (for age, Child-Pugh class and year of admission) with 102 comparable cirrhotic patients with ascites who were admitted for conditions other than SBP.RESULTS: Patients with SBP had a significantly higher rate of pre-hospital PPI use (60.8%) compared with cirrhotic patients without SBP (42.2%; P=0.03). On multivariate analysis, PPI use was the only factor independently associated with SBP (OR 2.09 [95% CI 1.04 to 4.23]; P=0.04). Thirty-five (35%) patients in both groups had no documented indication for PPI use in their charts. Forty-five percent of the remaining cirrhotic patients with SBP had an inappropriate indication, as defined in the protocol, for PPI use compared with 25% of controls.CONCLUSIONS: Cirrhotic patients with SBP were twice as likely to have taken PPIs than patients without SBP. These findings reinforce the association between PPI use and SBP observed in other studies. A high percentage of cirrhotic patients were taking a PPI without any documented indication.

Methadone offers many advantages for treating cancer pain. However, its pharmacokinetic profile makes its use as a full-dose opioid challenging.To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose methadone as an adjunct to opioids in the treatment of cancer pain in palliative care patients.A cohort was followed retrospectively for up to 60 days after the initiation of methadone as a coanalgesic.Patients were eligible if they were prescribed methadone as a coanalgesic for cancer pain management and followed by the palliative care team.The primary efficacy end point was reduction of pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale). Variables associated with pain intensity reduction were explored using logistic regressions. Adverse events were collected throughout the follow-up.Seventy-two of the 146 subjects (49%) qualified as significant responders (≥30% reduction in pain intensity). Median time to significant response was seven days, and pain intensity on the day of methadone initiation predicted the response to treatment. The most frequently reported adverse events were drowsiness, confusion, constipation, and nausea. As expected in a palliative care population, there was a substantial amount of missing data.A significant reduction in pain can be seen rapidly after the addition of methadone as a coanalgesic, particularly among patients with high pain intensity. More studies are needed to corroborate the efficacy of methadone as an adjunct to opioids.

Background: Intravenous pantoprazole is used at Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) for the adjuvant treatment of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGB) and for inhibiting acid secretion among patients unable to tolerate oral intake (NPO). Since it was added to the CHUM formulary, the use of intravenous pantoprazole has steadily increased, and at times it has been used without endoscopic documentation of a nonvariceal UGB or even when the patient could have received a proton pump inhibitor orally. Objective: To assess the impact of an algorithm for intravenous pantoprazole on prescription compliance. Methods: Using a pre–post intervention specification, the use of pantoprazole was audited on a retrospective (January 1, 2002, to April 30, 2002) and prospective (January 1, 2003, to April 30, 2003) basis. We reviewed the medical records of all patients having received intravenous pantoprazole during these periods, assessing the compliance of prescriptions as specified by the algorithm. Cost of therapy and the step-down regimen were also reviewed. Results: In total, 150 patients were identified in the retrospective phase and 109patients in the prospective phase. The subjects were organized into 2 groups: UGB and NPO. In the UGB group, rates of compliance with indication, dose, and duration of treatment in the retrospective phase were 8.8%, 76.5%, and 58.8%, respectively; the corresponding rates for the prospective phase were 26.5% (p < 0.01), 80.9% (p = 0.53), and 69.1% (p = 0.78), respectively. The total rates of compliance (including indication, dose, and duration) were 4.4% in the retrospective phase and 11.8% in the prospective phase (p = 0.12). In the NPO group, the rate of compliance at the initiation of pantoprazole was 42.7% in the retrospective phase and 36.6% in the prospective phase (p = 0.51). The cost of noncompliance with the indication in the UGB group was estimated at $12 270 CDN (in the retrospective phase) and $7829 (in the prospective phase). In the NPO group, the cost figures were $8048 (retrospective phase) and $5929 (prospective phase). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that intravenous pantoprazole is being used in a suboptimal manner in our institution. Despite explicit criteria for use, in the prospective phase, we observed only 11.8% total compliance in the UGB group and 36.6% compliance at the initiation of pantoprazole in the NPO group. Even though these results were not statistically significant, in the prospective phase, we saw improvement in most compliance rates.

The treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been revolutionised over the past decade by the increasing use of immunomodulators, mainly azathioprine (AZA)/6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) and methotrexate (MTX), together with the advent of biological therapy. Immunomodulators are being used more often and earlier in the course of the disease.1 The introduction of biologic agents, especially inhibitors of the key proinflammatory cytokine, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) initiated a new therapeutic era, whose use has grown continuously since their introduction in 1998.2 With such immunomodulation, the potential for opportunistic infection is a key safety concern for patients with IBD. Opportunistic infections pose particular problems for the clinician: they are often difficult to recognise and are associated with appreciable morbidity or mortality, because they are potentially serious and hard to treat effectively. Enhancing awareness and improving the knowledge of gastroenterologists about opportunistic infections are important elements to optimise patient outcomes through the development of preventive or early diagnostic strategies. A long list of opportunistic infections has been described in patients with IBD. Many questions remain unanswered, not only concerning the need for screening, preventive measures or the best diagnostic approach, but also on appropriate treatment and management of immunomodulator therapy once infection occurs. This led the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) to establish a Consensus meeting on opportunistic infections in IBD. The formal process of a Consensus meeting has been described,3 but the purpose is to quantify expert opinion in the context of a systematic review of existing evidence. To organise the work, infections were classified into six major topics (see plan). Specific questions were asked for each infectious agent. The different topics were distributed to working groups that comprised junior and senior gastroenterologists with infectious disease experts. Each group performed a systematic review of the literature and answered …

Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS) is a potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction presenting with fever, skin eruptions, and internal organ involvement. We describe a case of AHS with fulminant hepatitis that occurred two weeks after introduction of lamotrigine in a 40-year-old female patient with a recently diagnosed bipolar disorder, no pre-existent systemic organ involvement, and no other medication. Lamotrigine was introduced at a dosage of 25 mg daily and increased to 50 mg daily 12 days later. The patient had favorable evolution with cessation of lamotrigine and supportive treatment. This report suggests that AHS with fulminant hepatitis may occur idiosyncratically, independent of dosage, titration and comedication with other potentially hepatotoxic drugs.