An educational intervention to optimize use of proton pump inhibitors in a Greek university hospital

Background

Misuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is an alarming issue for patients and healthcare systems.

Methods

We conducted a 3-phase interventional, prospective study in a Greek university hospital. During Phase I, we collected data from patients' records to evaluate the appropriate use of PPIs. During Phase II, educational seminars about the proper use of PPIs were offered to the medical staff. In Phase III we collected data from the records of patients admitted to the hospital department with the highest rate of inappropriate PPI administration during Phase I, to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. Inappropriate use was defined as either PPI administration without indication, or lack of use despite adequate indication. Appropriateness of PPI use was measured at admission, during hospitalization and at discharge.

Results

The rate of inappropriate PPI use was higher (51.7% and 48.6%) during hospitalization than at admission (34.9% and 21.9%), but at discharge was similar to pre-hospitalization levels (26.9% and 23.6%), in Phases I and III, respectively. At discharge during Phase I, the inappropriate use of PPIs was significantly higher (odds ratio 3.79, 95% confidence interval 1.98-7.19) for internal medicine patients than for surgical patients. The educational intervention failed to reduce the inappropriate use of PPIs during hospitalization (51.7% vs. 48.6%, P=0.478) or at discharge (26.9% vs. 23.6%, P=0.391) in the internal medicine patients.

Conclusions

The rate of inappropriate PPI use is almost double during hospitalization compared to the rates at admission and at discharge. Implementation of an educational intervention failed to reduce the inappropriate use of PPIs in internal medicine patients.

COVID-19 in the endoscopy unit: How likely is transmission of infection? Results from an international, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) significantly affected endoscopy practice, as gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered a risky procedure for transmission of infection to patients and personnel of endoscopy units (PEU).

AIM

To assess the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy during the first European lockdown (March-May 2020).

METHODS

Patients undergoing endoscopy in nine endoscopy units across six European countries during the period of the first European lockdown for COVID-19 (March-May 2020) were included. Prior to the endoscopy procedure, participants were stratified as low- or high- risk for potential COVID-19 infection according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) joint statement, and contacted 7-14 d later to assess COVID-19 infection status. PEU were questioned regarding COVID-19 symptoms and/or infection via questionnaire, while information regarding hospitalizations, intensive care unit-admissions and COVID-19-related deaths were collected. The number of weekly endoscopies at each center during the lockdown period was also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1267 endoscopies were performed in 1222 individuals across nine European endoscopy departments in six countries. Eighty-seven (7%) were excluded because of initial positive testing. Of the 1135 pre-endoscopy low risk or polymerase chain reaction negative for COVID-19, 254 (22.4%) were tested post endoscopy and 8 were eventually found positive, resulting in an infection rate of 0.7% [(95%CI: 0.2-0.12]. The majority (6 of the 8 patients, 75%) had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Of the 163 PEU, 5 [3%; (95%CI: 0.4-5.7)] tested positive during the study period. A decrease of 68.7% (95%CI: 64.8-72.7) in the number of weekly endoscopies was recorded in all centers after March 2020. All centers implemented appropriate personal protective measures (PPM) from the initial phases of the lockdown.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 transmission in endoscopy units is highly unlikely in a lockdown setting, provided endoscopies are restricted to emergency cases and PPM are implemented.

Advanced Lung Cancer Survival in Times of Economic Hardship: A Greek Paradigm

Objective: Greece has been affected more than any other European country from the financial crisis that began in 2010. Just 20 months after Greece exited an eight-year long aid program, forecasts of a new recession within 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic make concerns regarding the compromise of health care quality within the new crisis relevant once again. In this study we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with advanced lung cancer in the pre-crisis and crisis era in a dedicated oncology centre in Greece. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 522 consecutive medical records of lung cancer patients admitted in a Greek dedicated cancer hospital between the years 2008-2013 was performed. Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) were calculated for advanced lung cancer compared over two consecutive time periods using 2010 as a cutoff point.Result: 71 and 78 patients comprised the study sample for the two periods. PFS and OS were similar over the two periods (7.73 [6.42-9.04] vs. 6.03 [5.02-7.04] and 13.70 [9.61-17.79] vs. 11.08 [7.74-15.92] months, respectively). Higher Performance Status (PS) was associated with worse survival measures over both periods, while no statistical significance was reached for OS in the latter period. Dissimilarities in PFS were observed between beneficiaries of different insurance trusts. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes for advanced lung cancer have not changed as a result of the financial crisis in our institution. The insurance provider seems to affect health outcomes. This old paradigm could serve as new guidance in the forthcoming recession due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinicopathological differences and correlations between right and left colon cancer

BACKGROUND

The differences in histopathology and molecular biology between right colon cancer (RCC) and left colon cancer (LCC) were first reported in the literature by Bufill in 1990. Since then, a large number of studies have confirmed their differences in epidemiology, clinical presentation, comorbidities and biological behaviours, which may be related to the difference in prognosis and overall survival (OS) between the two groups.

AIM

To investigate statistically significant differences between Greek patients with LCC and RCC.

METHODS

The present observational study included 144 patients diagnosed with colon cancer of any stage who received chemotherapy in a Greek tertiary oncology hospital during a 2.5-year period. Clinical information, comorbidities, histopathologic characteristics and molecular biomarkers were collected from the patients’ medical records retrospectively, while administered chemotherapy regimens, targeted agents, progression-free survival (PFS) periods with first- and second-line chemotherapy and OS were recorded retroactively and prospectively. Data analysis was performed with the SPSS statistical package.

RESULTS

Eighty-six males and 58 females participated in the study. One hundred (69.4%) patients had a primary lesion in the left colon, and 44 (30.6%) patients had a primary lesion in the right colon. Patients with RCC were more likely to display anaemia than patients with LCC [odds ratio (OR) = 3.09], while LCC patients were more likely to develop rectal bleeding (OR = 3.37) and a feeling of incomplete evacuation (OR = 2.78) than RCC patients. Considering comorbidities, RCC patients were more likely to suffer from diabetes (OR = 3.31) and coronary artery disease (P = 0.056) than LCC patients. The mucinous differentiation rate was higher in the right-sided group than in the left-sided group (OR = 4.49), as was the number of infiltrated lymph nodes (P = 0.039), while the percentage of high-grade differentiation was higher in the group of patients with left-sided colon cancer than in RCC patients (OR = 2.78). RAS wild-type patients who received anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR): Treatment experienced greater benefit (PFS: 16.5 mo) than those who received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment (PFS: 13.7 mo) (P = 0.05), while among RAS wild-type patients who received anti-EGFR treatment, LCC patients experienced greater benefit (PFS: 15.8 mo) than the RCC subgroup (PFS: 5.5 mo) in the first-line chemotherapy setting (P = 0.034). BRAF-mutant patients had shorter PFS (9.3 mo) than BRAF wild-type patients (14.5 mo) (P = 0.033). RCC patients showed a shorter tumour recurrence period (7.7 mo) than those with LCC (14.5 mo) (P < 0.001), as well as shorter (OS) (58.4 mo for RCC patients; 82.4 mo for LCC patients) (P = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

RCC patients present more comorbidities, worse histological and molecular characteristics and a consequently higher probability of tumour recurrence, poor response to targeted therapy and shorter OS than LCC patients.