Publications
Department of Medicine faculty members published more than 3,600 peer-reviewed articles in 2024.
2018
2018
BACKGROUND
Clinical trial data studies suggest superiority of prasugrel over clopidogrel in patients with diabetes. However, the use, safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel in unselected diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remain unclear.
METHODS
PROMETHEUS was a prospective multicenter observational study of 19,919 ACS PCI patients enrolled between 2010 and 2013. The primary endpoint was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The safety endpoint was bleeding requiring hospitalization.
RESULTS
We identified 7580 (38%) subjects with and 12,329 (62%) without diabetes. Diabetic patients were older and had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors. However, they were less likely to receive prasugrel (18.2% vs. 21.7%). Use of prasugrel did not increase with the severity of clinical presentation in diabetics, whereas, among non-diabetics, prescription of prasugrel was higher in NSTEMI and STEMI compared to unstable angina. The 90-day and 1-year adjusted risk of MACE was greater in diabetics (at 1 year: 22.7% vs. 16.5%; HR 1.22 [1.14-1.33], p < 0.001). At 1 year, the risk of bleeding was also higher in diabetics (4.9% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.19 [1.01-1.39], p = 0.035). After multivariable adjustment, use of prasugrel was associated with a lower risk of death in diabetic patients both at 90 days and 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of prasugrel in diabetic patients with PCI-treated ACS was lower than in non-diabetics despite their high-risk profile and the severity of their clinical presentation. In diabetics, prasugrel was associated with a lower adjusted risk of 90-day death compared with clopidogrel.
View on PubMed2018
2018
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly being used for evaluation of diarrhea. The impact of these tests on patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is unknown. We performed a time-interrupted cohort study comparing GPPs and conventional stool evaluation in patients with IBD with diarrhea.
METHODS
We included 268 consecutive patients with IBD who underwent GPP (BioFire Diagnostics) (n = 134) or conventional stool culture and Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing (n = 134) during suspected IBD flare between 2012 and 2016. Primary outcome was composite of 30-day IBD-related hospitalization, surgery, or emergency department visit; secondary outcome was IBD treatment modification.
RESULTS
Overall, 41/134 (30.6%) patients tested positive on GPP (18 C. difficile, 17 other bacterial infections, and 6 viral pathogens) versus 14/134 patients (10.4%, all C. difficile) testing positive on conventional testing. Rate of IBD treatment modification in response to stool testing was lower in GPP group as compared conventional stool testing group (35.1 vs. 64.2%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, diagnostic evaluation with GPP was associated with three times higher odds of IBD-related hospitalization/surgery/ED visit (95% CI, 1.27-7.14), as compared to conventional stool testing. This negative impact was partly mediated by differences in ordering provider specialty, with non-gastroenterologists more likely to order GPP as compared to gastroenterologists.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with suspected flare of IBD, GPPs have higher pathogen detection rate and lead to lower rate of IBD treatment modification. A diagnostic testing strategy based on GPPs is associated with higher hospital-related healthcare utilization as compared to conventional stool testing, particularly when utilized by non-gastroenterologists.
View on PubMed2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018