Using the shared decision-making process as a cornerstone for care, all patients should be informed of all treatment modalities that are not contraindicated, regardless of invasiveness or irreversibility, as potential first-line treatments. For each treatment, the clinician should ensure that the man and his partner have a full understanding of the benefits and risk/burdens associated with that choice.

Purpose The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis and treatment of Peyronie’s disease. Materials and Methods A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed®, EMBASE® and Cochrane databases (search dates 1/1/1965 to 1/26/15) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of PD. The review yielded an evidence base of 303 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results The systematic review was used to create guideline statements regarding treatment of PD. When sufficient evidence existed, the body of evidence for a particular treatment was assigned a strength rating of A (high quality evidence; high certainty), B (moderate quality evidence; moderate certainty), or C (low quality evidence; low certainty). Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional consensus statements related to the diagnosis of PD are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions due to insufficient published evidence. Conclusions There is a continually expanding literature on PD; the Panel notes that this document constitutes a clinical strategy and is not intended to be interpreted rigidly. The most effective approach for a particular patient is best determined by the individual clinician and patient in the context of that patient’s history, values, and goals for treatment. As the science relevant to PD evolves and improves, the strategies presented here will be amended to remain consistent with the highest standards of clinical care.

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the leading evidence-based therapy for upper gastrointestinal disorders, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia, and peptic ulcer disease. The effectiveness of PPIs has led to overutilization in multiple treatment arenas, exposing patients to an increasing number of potential risks. The overutilization of PPIs in ambulatory care settings is often a result of failure to re-evaluate the need for continuation of therapy, or insufficient use of on-demand and step-down therapy. PPI overutilization in the inpatient setting is often a result of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in nonintensive care unit patients, and failure to discontinue SUP prior to hospital discharge. Potential consequences of prolonged PPI therapy include hypergastrinemia, enterochromaffinlike cell hyperplasia, and parietal cell hypertrophy, leading to rebound acid hypersecretion. PPIs have been linked via retrospective studies to increased risk of enteric infections including Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, community-acquired pneumonia, bone fracture, nutritional deficiencies, and interference with metabolism of antiplatelet agents. Reducing inappropriate prescribing of PPIs in the inpatient and outpatient settings can minimize potential for adverse events, and foster controllable cost expenditure.

Introduction:The irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) are associated with substantial symptom and disease burden. Although typically classified as distinct diseases, symptoms frequently overlap.Aim:The objective of this study was to characterize symptom and disease burden in IBS-C and CIC sufferers and examine a subset of CIC sufferers with abdominal symptoms.Methods:In a US population-based survey, respondents meeting the Rome III criteria for IBS-C or CIC rated symptom frequency and bothersomeness, missed work and disrupted productivity, and degree of obtaining and satisfaction with physician care. CIC respondents were analyzed in two subgroups: those with abdominal symptoms ≥once weekly (CIC-A) and those without (CIC-NA).Results:Of the 10,030 respondents, 328 met the criteria for IBS-C and 552 for CIC (363 CIC-A; 189 CIC-NA). All symptoms were significantly more frequent in IBS-C vs. CIC respondents (P<0.0001). Constipation was extremely/very bothersome in 72% of IBS-C respondents, 62% of CIC-A, and 40% of CIC-NA (P<0.01 all pairs). All 11 other measured symptoms were significantly more bothersome in IBS-C and CIC-A vs. CIC-NA respondents. In IBS-C vs. CIC-A, abdominal discomfort, bloating, straining, and pellet-like stools were also significantly more bothersome, with other remaining symptoms similar. Gastrointestinal symptoms disrupted productivity a mean of 4.9 days per month in IBS-C respondents, 3.2 in CIC-A, and 1.2 in CIC-NA (P<0.001 all pairs); missed days were similar in IBS-C and CIC-A respondents.Conclusion:CIC respondents with abdominal symptoms experience greater disease burden compared with CIC respondents without frequent abdominal symptoms and have a disease burden profile that is similar to IBS-C respondents.

2016-12-23T18:49:38

SUP is overutilized in the non-ICU setting, and patients are often discharged unnecessarily on AST, resulting in significant cost expenditure. Interventions to ensure appropriate use of SUP should decrease resource expenditures without detrimental impact on quality of care.

Conflicts of interest All members were required to complete a disclosure statement. These statements are maintained at the American Gastroenterological Association Institute headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland and pertinent disclosures are published with the report.

No abstract