Interrogation of related clinical pan-azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus strains: G138C, Y431C, and G434C single nucleotide polymorphisms in cyp51A, upregulation of cyp51A, and integration and activation of transposon Atf1 in the cyp51A promoter.

Multiple Aspergillus fumigatus isolates from a patient with two aspergillomas complicating chronic pulmonary aspergillosis were pan-azole resistant. Microsatellite typing was identical for all isolates despite major phenotypic and some growth rate differences. Three different cyp51A mutations were found (G138C, Y431C, and G434C), of which the first two were demonstrated by heterologous expression in a hypersusceptible Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain to be at least partly responsible for elevated MICs. cyp51A and cyp51B gene duplication was excluded, but increased expression of cyp51A was demonstrated in three isolates selected for additional study (7-to 13-fold increases). In the isolate with the greatest cyp51A expression, an Aft1 transposon was found inserted 370 bp upstream of the start codon of the cyp51A gene, an integration location never previously demonstrated in Aspergillus. Two transcription start sites were identified at 49 and 136 bp upstream of the start codon. The role of the Aft1 transposon, if any, in modulating cyp51A expression remains to be established. Increased mRNA expression of the transporters AfuMDR1 and AfuMDR4 also was demonstrated in some isolates, which could contribute to azole resistance or simply represent a stress response. The diversity of confirmed and possible azole resistance mechanisms demonstrated in a single series of isogenic isolates is remarkable, indicating the ability of A. fumigatus to adapt in the clinical setting.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largely underdiagnosed by clinicians

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Frequent users of emergency departments present very high prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders, which are largery underdiagnosed by clinicians.

Background: The objective of this study was to determine if mental health and substance use diagnoses were equally detected in frequent users (FUs) compared to infrequent users (IUs) of emergency departments (EDs). Methods: In a sample of 399 adult patients (>= 18 years old) admitted to a teaching hospital ED, we compared the mental health and substance use disorders diagnoses established clinically and consigned in the medical files by the ED physicians to data obtained in face-to-face research interviews using the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Between November 2009 and June 2010, 226 FUs (>4 visits within a year) who attended the ED were included, and 173 IUs (<= 4 visits within a year) were randomly selected from a pool of identified patients to comprise the comparison group. Results: For mental health disorders identified by the PRIME-MD, FUs were more likely than IUs to have an anxiety (34 vs. 16%, Chi2(1) = 16.74, p <0.001), depressive (47 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 19.11, p <0.001) or posttraumatic stress (PTSD) disorder (11 vs. 5%, Chi2(1) = 4.87, p = 0.027). Only 3/76 FUs (4%) with an anxiety disorder, 16/104 FUs (15%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 24 FUs with PTSD were detected by the ED medical staff. None of the 27 IUs with an anxiety disorder, 6/43 IUs (14%) with a depressive disorder and none of the 8 IUs with PTSD were detected. For substance use disorders identified by the ASSIST, FUs were more at risk than IUs for alcohol (24 vs. 7%, Chi2(1) = 21.12, p <0.001) and drug abuse/dependence (36 vs. 25%, Chi2(1) = 5.52, p = 0.019). Of the FUs, 14/54 (26%) using alcohol and 8/81 (10%) using drugs were detected by the ED physicians. Of the IUs, 5/12 (41%) using alcohol and none of the 43 using drugs were detected. Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of detection of mental health and substance use disorders between FUs and IUs (Fisher's Exact Test: anxiety, p = 0.567; depression, p = 1.000; PTSD, p = 1.000; alcohol, p = 0.517; and drugs, p = 0.053). Conclusions: While the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders was higher among FUs, the rates of detection were not significantly different for FUs vs. IUs. However, it may be that drug disorders among FUs were more likely to be detected.

Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies involving factor analysis (FA) of the items in the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome assessment instrument have revealed inconsistent factor structures for the individual items. PURPOSE: This study examined whether the factor structure of the NASS varied in relation to the severity of the back/neck problem and differed from that originally recommended by the developers of the questionnaire, by analyzing data before and after surgery in a large series of patients undergoing lumbar or cervical disc arthroplasty. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective multicenter observational case series. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred ninety-one patients with low back pain and 553 patients with neck pain completed questionnaires preoperatively and again at 3 to 6 and 12 months follow-ups (FUs), in connection with the SWISSspine disc arthroplasty registry. OUTCOME MEASURES: North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument. METHODS: First, an exploratory FA without a priori assumptions and subsequently a confirmatory FA were performed on the 17 items of the NASS-lumbar and 19 items of the NASS-cervical collected at each assessment time point. The item-loading invariance was tested in the German version of the questionnaire for baseline and FU. RESULTS: Both NASS-lumbar and NASS-cervical factor structures differed between baseline and postoperative data sets. The confirmatory analysis and item-loading invariance showed better fit for a three-factor (3F) structure for NASS-lumbar, containing items on "disability," "back pain," and "radiating pain, numbness, and weakness (leg/foot)" and for a 5F structure for NASS-cervical including disability, "neck pain," "radiating pain and numbness (arm/hand)," "weakness (arm/hand)," and "motor deficit (legs)." CONCLUSIONS: The best-fitting factor structure at both baseline and FU was selected for both the lumbar- and cervical-NASS questionnaires. It differed from that proposed by the originators of the NASS instruments. Although the NASS questionnaire represents a valid outcome measure for degenerative spine diseases, it is able to distinguish among all major symptom domains (factors) in patients undergoing lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty; overall, the item structure could be improved. Any potential revision of the NASS should consider its factorial structure; factorial invariance over time should be aimed for, to allow for more precise interpretations of treatment success.

Support services for vulnerable patients by a multidisciplinary team in an emergency department

Introduction: Individuals with poor social determinants of health aremore likely to receive improper healthcare. Frequent Users (FUs) ofEmergency Departments (ED) (defined as >4 visits in the previous12 months) represent a subgroup of vulnerable patients presentingwith specific medical and social needs. They usually account for highhealthcare costs by overusing the healthcare system. In 2008-2009,FUs accounted for 4% of our ED patients but 17% of all our ED visits.Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort of patients admitted toour ED with vulnerabilities in ≥3 specific domains (somatic or mentaldiseases, risk behaviors, social determinants of health, and healthcareuse). Patients were either directly identified by a multidisciplinary team(two nurses, one social worker, one physician) or referred to that teamby the ED staff during opening hours from July 1st 2010 to April 30th2011.Results: 127 patients were included (67% males), aged 43 years (SD15); 65% were migrants. They had a median of 6 ED visits (interquartilerange (IQR) 8-1) in the previous 12 months, representing a total of 697visits. The most frequently affected domains during the index visit were:71% somatic, 61% psychiatric, 75% risk behaviors, 97% social and84% healthcare use issues. Each case required a median of 234minutes (IQR 300-90) dedicated to assess their outpatient network(99% of the patients), to set up an ambulatory medical follow-up (43%)or a meeting with social services (40%).Conclusions: Vulnerability affected ED patients in more than onedomain. Vulnerable patients have complex needs that were difficult toaddress in the time-pressured ED setting. Although ED consultationoffers immediate access to medical care, EDs are dedicated more foracute short-term somatic care. Caring for a growing number ofvulnerable patients requires a different type of management. Limitedevidence shows that multidisciplinary case-management interventionshave demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of reducing ED useand costs, and improvement of patient's medical and social outcomes.A randomized trial of case-management is underway to confirm theresults of observational studies.

Social and medical vulnerability factors of frequent users at the emergency department: a case-control study

BACKGROUND: Up to 5% of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) four or more times within a 12 month period represent 21% of total ED visits. In this study we sought to characterize social and medical vulnerability factors of ED frequent users (FUs) and to explore if these factors hold simultaneously. METHODS: We performed a case-control study at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Patients over 18 years presenting to the ED at least once within the study period (April 2008 toMarch 2009) were included. FUs were defined as patients with four or more ED visits within the previous 12 months. Outcome data were extracted from medical records of the first ED attendance within the study period. Outcomes included basic demographics and social variables, ED admission diagnosis, somatic and psychiatric days hospitalized over 12 months, and having a primary care physician.We calculated the percentage of FUs and non-FUs having at least one social and one medical vulnerability factor. The four chosen social factors included: unemployed and/or dependence on government welfare, institutionalized and/or without fixed residence, either separated, divorced or widowed, and under guardianship. The fourmedical vulnerability factors were: ≥6 somatic days hospitalized, ≥1 psychiatric days hospitalized, ≥5 clinical departments used (all three factors measured over 12 months), and ED admission diagnosis of alcohol and/or drug abuse. Univariate and multivariate logistical regression analyses allowed comparison of two JGIM ABSTRACTS S391 random samples of 354 FUs and 354 non-FUs (statistical power 0.9, alpha 0.05 for all outcomes except gender, country of birth, and insurance type). RESULTS: FUs accounted for 7.7% of ED patients and 24.9% of ED visits. Univariate logistic regression showed that FUs were older (mean age 49.8 vs. 45.2 yrs, p=0.003),more often separated and/or divorced (17.5%vs. 13.9%, p=0.029) or widowed (13.8% vs. 8.8%, p=0.029), and either unemployed or dependent on government welfare (31.3% vs. 13.3%, p<0.001), compared to non-FUs. FUs cumulated more days hospitalized over 12 months (mean number of somatic days per patient 1.0 vs. 0.3, p<0.001; mean number of psychiatric days per patient 0.12 vs. 0.03, p<0.001). The two groups were similar regarding gender distribution (females 51.7% vs. 48.3%). The multivariate linear regression model was based on the six most significant factors identified by univariate analysis The model showed that FUs had more social problems, as they were more likely to be institutionalized or not have a fixed residence (OR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.65 to 12.93), and to be unemployed or dependent on government welfare (OR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.14) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to need medical care, as indicated by involvement of≥5 clinical departments over 12 months (OR 6.2; 95%CI, 3.74 to 10.15), having an ED admission diagnosis of substance abuse (OR 3.23; 95% CI, 1.23 to 8.46) and having a primary care physician (OR 1.70;95%CI, 1.13 to 2.56); however, they were less likely to present with an admission diagnosis of injury (OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.00) compared to non-FUs. FUs were more likely to combine at least one social with one medical vulnerability factor (38.4% vs. 12.1%, OR 7.74; 95% CI 5.03 to 11.93). CONCLUSIONS: FUs were more likely than non-FUs to have social and medical vulnerability factors and to have multiple factors in combination.