INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of this guideline is to establish evidence-based recommendations for the clinical use of parenteral nutrition (PN) in adult patients within the acute hospital setting in Singapore. METHOD: An expert workgroup, consisting of healthcare practitioners actively involved in clinical nutrition support across all public health institutions, systematically evaluated existing evidence and addressed clinical questions relating to PN therapy. RESULTS: This clinical practice guideline developed 30 recommendations for PN therapy, which cover these key aspects related to PN use: indications, patient assess-ment, titration and formulation of PN bags, access routes and devices, and monitoring and management of PN-related complications. CONCLUSION This guideline provides recommendations to ensure appropriate and safe clinical practice of PN therapy in adult patients within the acute hospital setting.
Humans ; Singapore ; Parenteral Nutrition/adverse effects* ; Adult

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Objectives: This study aimed to present the Asia-Pacific consensus on long-term and sequential therapy for osteoporosis, offering evidence-based recommendations for the effective management of this chronic condition.The primary focus is on achieving optimal fracture prevention through a comprehensive, individualized approach. Methods: A panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements by synthesizing the current literature and leveraging clinical expertise. The review encompassed long-term anti-osteoporosis medication goals, first-line treatments for individuals at very high fracture risk, and the strategic integration of anabolic and anti resorptive agents in sequential therapy approaches. Results: The panelists reached a consensus on 12 statements. Key recommendations included advocating for anabolic agents as the first-line treatment for individuals at very high fracture risk and transitioning to anti resorptive agents following the completion of anabolic therapy. Anabolic therapy remains an option for in dividuals experiencing new fractures or persistent high fracture risk despite antiresorptive treatment. In cases of inadequate response, the consensus recommended considering a switch to more potent medications. The consensus also addressed the management of medication-related complications, proposing alternatives instead of discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions This consensus provides a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy for fracture prevention with an emphasis on shared decision-making and the incorporation of country-specific case management systems, such as fracture liaison services. It serves as a valuable guide for healthcare professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the ongoing evolution of osteoporosis management.

Arm ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Carboplatin ; Disease-Free Survival ; Doxorubicin ; Drug Therapy ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Maintenance Chemotherapy ; Ovarian Neoplasms ; Prognosis ; Quality of Life ; Recombination, Genetic ; Sample Size

Objectives: An Asian Gynecologic Oncology Group phase III randomized trial was conducted to determine whether maintenance chemotherapy could improve progression-free survival (PFS) in stages III/IV ovarian cancer. Methods: Between 2007 and 2014, 45 newly-diagnosed ovarian cancer patients were enrolled after complete remission and randomized (1:1) to arm A (4-weekly carboplatin area under the curve 4 and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [PLD] 30 mg/m2, n=24) for 6 cycles or arm B (observation, n=21). The primary end-point was PFS. A post hoc translational study was conducted to deep sequence BRCA/homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) genes, because BRCA/HRD mutations (BRCA/HRDm) are known to be associated with better prognosis. Results: Enrollment was slow, accrual was closed when 7+ years had passed. With a medianfollow-up of 88.9 months, the median PFS was significantly better in arm A (55.5 months) than arm B (9.2 months) (hazard ratio [HR]=0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.19–0.87; p=0.020), yet the median overall survival was not significantly different in arm A (not reached) than arm B (95.1 months) (p=0.148). Overall grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent in arm A than arm B (60.9% vs 0.0%) (p<0.001). Quality of life was generally not significantly different. Distribution of BRCA1/2m or BRCA/HRDm was not significantly biased between the two arms. Wild-type BRCAon-HRD subgroup seemed to fare better with maintenance therapy (HR=0.35; 95% CI=0.11–1.18; p=0.091). Conclusions Despite limitations in small sample size, it suggests that maintenance carboplatin-PLD chemotherapy could improve PFS in advanced ovarian cancer.

Objective: The relationship of antipsychotics and the risk of refracture in treated patients is unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between prolonged antipsychotic and the incidences of bone fractures and refractures in schizophrenia. Methods: This is a retrospective nested case-control study using Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database recorded from 2000 to 2005, with cases followed up to end of 2011. Total of 7,842 schizophrenic patients, 3,955 had developed bone fractures were compared with 3,887 control subjects matched in age, sex, and index date.Antipsychotic drug exposure was classified based on the drug type and medication duration. Conditional logistic regression analyses were performed. Odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results: We found (after adjustments) higher risks of developing fractures under continued use of typical (OR = 1.70; 95% CI, 1.51−1.91) or atypical antipsychotics (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.28−1.60) were found. Additionally, continued use typical (OR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.35−2.50) or atypical antipsychotics (OR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06−1.95) was positively associated with refracture risks. Moreover, refractures were associated with continuous use of chlorpromazine (one typical antipsychotics, OR = 2.45; 95% CI, 1.14−5.25), and risperidone (OR = 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01−2.16) or zotepine (OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.06−4.36) (two atypical antipsychotics). Conclusion Higher risks of bone fracture and refracture were found in schizophrenia under prolonged medication with typical or atypical antipsychotics. We therefore recommend that clinicians should pay more attention on bone density monitoring for patients using long-term antipsychotics.