No abstract

No abstract

Fatigue and pruritus are common in patients with chronic liver diseases of all etiologies, but clinical awareness is mostly restricted to those with cholestatic liver diseases. We assessed the impact of fatigue and pruritus on patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with advanced nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Specifically, PROs (Short Form–36, Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire–NASH, Euro‐Qol 5 Dimension, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment instruments) were assessed at baseline in patients with histologically confirmed bridging fibrosis (F3) or compensated cirrhosis (F4) due to NASH enrolled in STELLAR 3 and 4. Presence of fatigue and pruritus were indicated by a score of 4 or less on the respective items of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire–NASH (scale range, 1‐7). Among the included 1,669 patients with advanced NASH (mean age = 58 ± 9 years, 48% F3, 42% with psychiatric comorbidities), 33% and 27% had fatigue and pruritus, respectively. Patients with NASH with fatigue were younger, more likely to be female, cirrhotic, and diabetic, and had higher body mass index and more comorbidities (all P < 0.05). All PRO scores of patients with fatigue were significantly impaired (mean up to −31% of a PRO range size in comparison to patients without fatigue). In multivariate analysis, predictors of fatigue included diabetes, history of depression or nervous system comorbidities, and lower serum albumin ( P < 0.05). Patients with pruritus had demographic characteristics similar to those with fatigue, but a higher prevalence of dermatologic comorbidities. All PROs were impaired (by up to −19% of a range size, all P < 0.01) in patients with NASH with pruritus. Female gender, lower serum albumin, and a history of depression, nervous system, and dermatologic comorbidities were associated with increased risk of pruritus ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: Clinically significant fatigue and pruritus are common in patients with advanced NASH, and these symptoms negatively affect PROs.

The GOCARE curriculum provides an alternative model of communication training that can be integrated into residency training and improve residents' skills in outpatient ACP discussions.

for the BaSICS investigators and the BRICNet members IMPORTANCE Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately).INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was 90-day survival.RESULTS Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate.