Effects of non-ionic iodinated contrast media on patient heart rate and pressures during intra-cardiac or intra-arterial injection

PURPOSE: To compare the effects on heart rate (HR), on left ventricular (LV) or arterial pressures, and the general safety of a non-ionic low-osmolar contrast medium (CM) and a non-ionic iso-osmolar CM in patients undergoing cardiac angiography (CA) or peripheral intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IA-DSA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two double-blind, randomized studies were conducted in 216 patients who underwent CA (n=120) or peripheral IA-DSA (n=96). Patients referred for CA received a low-osmolar monomeric CM (iomeprol-350, n=60) or an iso-osmolar dimeric CM (iodixanol-320; n=60). HR and LV peak systolic and end-diastolic pressures were determined before and after the first injection during left and right coronary arteriography and left ventriculography. Monitoring for all types of adverse event (AE) was performed for 24 h following the procedure. t-tests were performed to compare CM for effects on HR. Patients referred for IA-DSA received iomeprol-300 (n=49) or iodixanol-320 (n=47). HR and arterial blood pressure (BP) were evaluated before and after the first 4 injections. Monitoring for AE was performed for 4 h following the procedure. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare mean HR changes across the first 4 injections, whereas changes after the first injection were compared using t-tests. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between iomeprol and iodixanol in terms of mean changes in HR during left coronary arteriography (p=0.8), right coronary arteriography (p=0.9), and left ventriculography (p=0.8). In patients undergoing IA-DSA, no differences between CM were noted for effects on mean HR after the first injection (p=0.6) or across the first 4 injections (p=0.2). No significant differences (p>0.05) were noted in terms of effects on arterial BP in either study or on LV pressures in patients undergoing CA. Non-serious AE considered possibly CM-related (primarily headache and events affecting the cardiovascular and digestive systems) were reported more frequently by patients undergoing CA and more frequently after iodixanol (14/60 [23.3%] and 2/47 [4.3%]; CA and IA-DSA, respectively) than iomeprol (10/60 [16.7%] and 1/49 [2%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Iomeprol and iodixanol are safe and have equally negligible effects on HR and LV pressures or arterial BP during and after selective intra-cardiac injection and peripheral IA-DSA. CLINICAL APPLICATION: Iomeprol and iodixanol are safe and equally well tolerated with regard to cardiac rhythm and clinical preference should be based on diagnostic image quality alone.

Staged bilateral carotid stenting, an effective strategy in high-risk patients - insights from a prospective multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing bilateral carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A total of 747 patients at increased risk for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were enrolled in a prospective registry at 47 US sites of the Boston Scientific EPI: A Carotid Stenting Trial for Risk Surgical Patients (BEACH) trial. Among them, 78 (10.4%) patients underwent contralateral CAS > 30 days after the primary CAS procedure. Patients were followed at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter for 3 years. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of non Q-wave myocardial infarction within 24 hours, periprocedural (events from 31 days up to 12 months. The bilateral patients are independent from the pivotal cohort. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 885 + 320 days in the bilateral and 861 + 343 in the pivotal group. The primary endpoint occurred in 6.8% (5/73) of the bilateral patients and 8.9% (40/447) of the pivotal group (P = .66). There were no statistically significant differences between the bilateral and the pivotal groups with regard to any of the components of the primary or secondary endpoints. The univariate 1-year major adverse event (MAE) free survival was 93.6% and 91.6% in the bilateral and pivotal groups, respectively (P = .55). Multivariate logistic regression analysis with adjustment for various clinical baseline factors revealed no differences in the primary endpoint when comparing the bilateral with the pivotal groups at 30 days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.8673, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4590-1.6389, P = .66) or 1 year (OR: 0.9102, 95% CI 0.5503-1.5053, P = .73). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral carotid stenting is an effective treatment strategy in patients determined to be at high-risk for CEA with no increase in morbidity or mortality results extended out to one year in a prospective multicenter trial.

Therapeutic angiogenesis with intramuscular NV1FGF improves amputation-free survival in patients with critical limb ischemia

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intramuscular administration of NV1FGF, a plasmid-based angiogenic gene delivery system for local expression of fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF-1), versus placebo, in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, European, multinational study, 125 patients in whom revascularization was not considered to be a suitable option, presenting with nonhealing ulcer(s), were randomized to receive eight intramuscular injections of placebo or 2.5 ml of NV1FGF at 0.2 mg/ml on days 1, 15, 30, and 45 (total 16 mg: 4 x 4 mg). The primary end point was occurrence of complete healing of at least one ulcer in the treated limb at week 25. Secondary end points included ankle brachial index (ABI), amputation, and death. There were 107 patients eligible for evaluation. Improvements in ulcer healing were similar for use of NV1FGF (19.6%) and placebo (14.3%; P = 0.514). However, the use of NV1FGF significantly reduced (by twofold) the risk of all amputations [hazard ratio (HR) 0.498; P = 0.015] and major amputations (HR 0.371; P = 0.015). Furthermore, there was a trend for reduced risk of death with the use of NV1FGF (HR 0.460; P = 0.105). The adverse event incidence was high, and similar between the groups. In patients with CLI, plasmid-based NV1FGF gene transfer was well tolerated, and resulted in a significantly reduced risk of major amputation when compared with placebo.

Efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with previous monotherapy: the Exforge in Failure after Single Therapy (EX-FAST) study

In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, patients whose blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled by monotherapy were switched directly to amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg (n=443) or 10/160 mg (n=451). After 16 weeks, BP control (levels <140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg for diabetics) was achieved in 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6-76.9) of patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg and in 74.8% (95% CI, 70.8-78.9) receiving amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg. Incremental reductions from baseline in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with the higher dose (20.0+/-0.7 vs 17.5+/-0.7 mm Hg; P=.0003 and 11.6+/-0.4 vs 10.4+/-0.4 mm Hg; P=.0046). Incremental BP reductions were also achieved with both regimens irrespective of previous monotherapy, hypertension severity, diabetic status, body mass index, and age. Peripheral edema was the most frequent adverse event. These results provide support for the BP-lowering benefits of complementary antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by previous monotherapy.

Drug-eluting stent thrombosis

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have reduced the risk of repeat revascularization procedures by 50-70% compared with bare metal stents across a wide range of lesion and patients subsets. Stent thrombosis is a rare but devastating adverse event, which results in abrupt closure of the treated artery with the incumbent risk of sudden death or myocardial infarction. Although stent thrombosis has been recognized as a shortcoming of coronary artery stents since there inception, very late stent thrombosis occurring more than one year after stent implantation emerged as a new entity complicating the use of DES. The mechanisms leading to very late ST are complex and only incompletely understood. Delayed healing and incomplete re-endothelialization emerged as prevailing mechanism of thrombosis in autopsy studies. Various components of DES may give rise to very late stent thrombosis, notably the polymers used for controlled drug-release. Newer generation DES attempt to address these concerns by aiming at improved vascular healing while maintaining potent neointimal suppression.

S-Adenosylmethionine for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly. S-Adenosylmethionine may be a viable treatment option but the evidence about its effectiveness and safety is equivocal. OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) with placebo or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and function and safety outcomes in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared SAMe at any dosage and in any formulation with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and relative risks for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 656 patients were included in the systematic review, all compared SAMe with placebo. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting were poor. For pain, the analysis indicated a small SMD of -0.17 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between SAMe and placebo of 0.4 cm on a 10 cm VAS, with no between trial heterogeneity (I(2) = 0). For function, the analysis suggested a SMD of 0.02 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.71) with a moderate degree of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 = 54%). The meta-analyses of the number of patients experiencing any adverse event, and withdrawals or drop-outs due to adverse events, resulted in relative risks of 1.27 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.71) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.86), respectively, but confidence intervals were wide and tests for overall effect were not significant. No trial provided information concerning the occurrence of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of mainly small trials of questionable quality. The effects of SAMe on both pain and function may be potentially clinically relevant and, although effects are expected to be small, deserve further clinical evaluation in adequately sized randomised, parallel-group trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, routine use of SAMe should not be advised.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if patients suffer from severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain and function and the safety of oral or transdermal opioids as compared with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Studies of tramadol were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. Trials were combined using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 2268 participants were included. Oral codeine was studied in three trials, transdermal fentanyl and oral morphine in one trial each, oral oxycodone in four, and oral oxymorphone in two trials. Overall, opioids were more effective than control interventions in terms of pain relief (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.26) and improvement of function (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.21). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency (strong or weak), daily dose, duration of treatment or follow up, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Adverse events were more frequent in patients receiving opioids compared to control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.70) for any adverse event (4 trials), 4.05 (95% CI 3.06 to 5.38) for dropouts due to adverse events (10 trials), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials). Withdrawal symptoms were more severe after fentanyl treatment compared to placebo (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small to moderate beneficial effects of non-tramadol opioids are outweighed by large increases in the risk of adverse events. Non-tramadol opioids should therefore not be routinely used, even if osteoarthritic pain is severe.

[Second victim : Critical incident stress management in clinical medicine]

BACKGROUND Critical incidents in clinical medicine can have far-reaching consequences on patient health. In cases of severe medical errors they can seriously harm the patient or even lead to death. The involvement in such an event can result in a stress reaction, a so-called acute posttraumatic stress disorder in the healthcare provider, the so-called second victim of an adverse event. Psychological distress may not only have a long lasting impact on quality of life of the physician or caregiver involved but it may also affect the ability to provide safe patient care in the aftermath of adverse events. METHODS A literature review was performed to obtain information on care giver responses to medical errors and to determine possible supportive strategies to mitigate negative consequences of an adverse event on the second victim. An internet search and a search in Medline/Pubmed for scientific studies were conducted using the key words "second victim, "medical error", "critical incident stress management" (CISM) and "critical incident stress reporting system" (CIRS). Sources from academic medical societies and public institutions which offer crisis management programs where analyzed. The data were sorted by main categories and relevance for hospitals. Analysis was carried out using descriptive measures. RESULTS In disaster medicine and aviation navigation services the implementation of a CISM program is an efficient intervention to help staff to recover after a traumatic event and to return to normal functioning and behavior. Several other concepts for a clinical crisis management plan were identified. CONCLUSIONS The integration of CISM and CISM-related programs in a clinical setting may provide efficient support in an acute crisis and may help the caregiver to deal effectively with future error events and employee safety.

Impact of B-type natriuretic peptide on short-term clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aims: We aimed to assess the impact of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods and results: Of 500 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI at our institution, we studied 340 patients who had a BNP assessment prior to TAVI. Patients were divided into tertiles - low: BNP ≤201 pg/mL (n=114), mid: BNP 202-595 pg/mL (n=113) and high: BNP ≥596 pg/mL (n=113). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, cardiac death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, major stroke and myocardial infarction) at 30 days. Compared with low tertile, high tertile patients were at higher baseline surgical risk (STS score 5.5±3.0 vs. 7.4±4.1, p=0.002). On echocardiography, high tertile patients had smaller valve areas (0.74±0.21 vs. 0.66±0.23 cm2, p=0.008), higher left ventricular (LV) mass indices (123.40±33.66 vs. 168.22±47.96 g/m2, p<0.001) and lower LV ejection fractions (61.59±7.18 vs. 42.65±15.41%, p<0.001) as compared with low tertile patients. At 30 days, a significantly higher incidence of death (hazard ratio [HR] 7.41, p=0.001) cardiac death (HR 5.82, p=0.006) and MACCE (HR 9.04, p<0.001) was observed among high as compared to low tertile patients. Conclusions: In TAVI patients, higher BNP values at baseline are associated with an increased risk for an adverse event periprocedurally and after 30 days, respectively.

B-type natriuretic peptide for diagnosis and treatment of congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND Prognostic classification of congestive heart failure (CHF) is difficult and only possible with the help of additional diagnostic tools. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) has been used as a diagnostic and prognostic marker for patients (pts) with CHF. In this study, the clinical value of BNP for stratification and treatment of pts with CHF was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS 33 out-pts with CHF (age 57 +/- 12 years) were included. Left-ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) was 27 +/- 8% (mean +/- SD) and NYHA-class 2.4 +/- 0.7. Following parameters were measured: BNP and sodium from blood samples, exercise performance from 6-minute walking test (6MWT, meters) (n = 18), LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and LV mass (LVM) from 2D-echocardiography (n = 33), as well as LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP, n = 23) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR, n = 20) from heart-catheterisation. Ten pts were hospitalised in the preceding 6 months because of worsening CHF or for optimisation of medical therapy. BNP was measured at the beginning and end of the hospital-stay. Follow-up was for 1 year. RESULTS Pts with a high NYHA-class had a higher BNP (pg/ml) than those with a low NYHA- class: NYHA I 51 +/- 20, II 281 +/- 223, III 562+/-346 and IV 1061 +/- 126 pg/ml (p = 0.002). BNP correlated with LVEDP (r = 0.50, p <0.02), SVR (r =0.49, p <0.03) and inversely with 6MWT (r =-0.60, p <0.009), LVEF (r = -0.49, p <0.004) and sodium (r = -0.36, p = 0.04). In the hospitalised pts, mean BNP (pg/ml) was 881 +/- 695 at admission,and 532 +/- 435 at discharge (n.s.). Decrease in BNPduring hospitalisation paralleled weight-loss and was significantly greater in patients with >1000 pg/ml BNP at admission (n = 5) as compared to the 5 patients with BNP <1000 (p <0.03). Patients with an adverse event during 1-year follow-up had significantly higher BNP both at steady-state (603 +/-359 pg/ml) and at time of decompensation than patients with a favourable outcome (227 +/- 218 pg/ml,p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS BNP correlates well with the clinical severity of CHF (NYHA-class) and is directly related to filling pressure (LVEDP), LV function(LVEF) and exercise performance (6 MWT). Furthermore, BNP has prognostic impact with regard to adverse clinical events.

CECOG experts' recommendations on the use of denosumab in the prevention of skeletal-related events in bone metastases of lung cancer

Purpose Skeletal-related events represent a substantial burden for patients with advanced cancer. Randomized, controlled studies suggested superiority of denosumab over zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal-related events in metastatic cancer patients, with a favorable safety profile. Experts gathered at the 2012 Skeletal Care Academy in Istanbul to bring forward practical recommendations, based on current evidence, for the use of denosumab in patients with bone metastases of lung cancer. Recommendations Based on current evidence, use of denosumab in lung cancer patients with confirmed bone metastases is recommended. It is important to note that clinical judgment should take into consideration the patient’s general performance status, overall prognosis, and live expectancy. Currently, the adverse event profile reported for denosumab includes hypocalcemia and infrequent occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Therefore, routine calcium and vitamin D supplementation, along with dental examination prior to denosumab initiation are recommended. There is no evidence for renal function impairment due to denosumab administration. At present, there is no rationale to discourage concomitant use of denosumab and surgery or radiotherapy.

Managing the risks of medical technology: Do hazard surveillance systems provide an early warning of medical device problems?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

In the aftermath of medical error : Caring for patients, family, and the healthcare workers involved

Medical errors, in particular those resulting in harm, pose a serious situation for patients ("first victims") and the healthcare workers involved ("second victims") and can have long-lasting and distressing consequences. To prevent a second traumatization, appropriate and empathic interaction with all persons involved is essential besides error analysis. Patients share a nearly universal, broad preference for a complete disclosure of incidents, regardless of age, gender, or education. This includes the personal, timely and unambiguous disclosure of the adverse event, information relating to the event, its causes and consequences, and an apology and sincere expression of regret. While the majority of healthcare professionals generally support and honest and open disclosure of adverse events, they also face various barriers which impede the disclosure (e.g., fear of legal consequences). Despite its essential importance, disclosure of adverse events in practice occurs in ways that are rarely acceptable to patients and their families. The staff involved often experiences acute distress and an intense emotional response to the event, which may become chronic and increase the risk of depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorders. Communication with peers is vital for people to be able to cope constructively and protectively with harmful errors. Survey studies among healthcare workers show, however, that they often do not receive sufficient individual and institutional support. Healthcare organizations should prepare for medical errors and harmful events and implement a communication plan and a support system that covers the requirements and different needs of patients and the staff involved.

Eculizumab hepatotoxicity in pediatric aHUS.

BACKGROUND Eculizumab is a humanized anti-C5 antibody approved for the treatment of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS). Its use is increasing in children following reports of its safety and efficacy. METHODS We reviewed biochemical and clinical data related to possible drug-induced liver injury in 11 children treated with eculizumab for aHUS in a single center. RESULTS Elevated aminotransferases were observed in 7 children aged 6 to 11 years following eculizumab treatment for aHUS. Internationally accepted liver enzyme thresholds for drug-induced liver injury were exceeded in 5 cases. In all cases, liver injury was classified as mixed hepatocellular and cholestatic. Infectious and other causes were excluded in each case. One patient with no pre-existing liver disease developed tender hepatomegaly and liver enzyme derangement exceeding 20 times the upper limit of normal following initiation of eculizumab. Recurrent liver injury following re-challenge with eculizumab necessitated its discontinuation and transition to plasma therapy. CONCLUSIONS Hepatotoxicity in association with eculizumab is a potentially important yet previously unreported adverse event. We recommend monitoring liver enzymes in all patients receiving eculizumab. Further research is required to clarify the impact of this adverse event, to characterize the mechanism of potential hepatotoxicity, and to identify which patients are most at risk.