The Hospitalist

In an industry brimming with opportunity and ongoing transformation, it is easy to feel indecisive about your next professional step when ample career paths exist in hospital medicine.

Yingkei Hui, MD, FHM, is an academic hospitalist at St. Vincent Indianapolis, and a Society of Hospital Medicine member since 2015. Seeking to set herself apart as an aspiring patient safety and quality improvement leader while continuing her professional development, she looked to SHM’s Fellow designation as the next piece of her career puzzle.

With more than 14 years of experience in the health care industry, Dr. Hui fell in love with the specialty because of its flexibility and patient-centric focus.

“I have a broad interest in medicine and want to learn everything under the larger umbrella of medicine,” she said. “I also find myself deeply in love with hospital medicine because it provides me with the opportunity to participate in various hospital committees and allows me to enjoy my practice from a macroscopic view of U.S. health care transformation – especially given the popular value-based patient care approach from recent years.”

Dr. Hui’s breadth of experience has allowed her to gain a unique set of perspectives and experiences from international and domestic standpoints. From attending medical school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to completing her residency on the east coast at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia – part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System – Dr. Hui has held active medical licenses in New Jersey and currently, Indiana.

“SHM’s Fellow designation allows me to challenge myself in setting my career goal as a patient safety and quality improvement leader in my program,” she said. “It means a lot to me as it is a stand-out recognition of my participation in and contribution to patient care in my institution.”

When asked about the most rewarding aspect of being a part of the hospital medicine community, Dr. Hui identified “satisfaction in the teaching role.” She said she is “motivated by the holistic care for the patients, the integration of medical knowledge and coordination of care, and also the opportunity to conduct quality improvement projects.”

Motivated by her colleagues, Dr. Hui credits SHM with providing her with the inspiration and tools to push herself and advance her career in hospital medicine.

“I enjoy immersing myself in SHM’s patient safety and quality improvement resources; they are perfect for frontline hospitalists and also provide CME [continuing medical education],” she noted. “My previous medical directors were all Senior Fellows; they are my role models and continue to inspire me throughout my career.”

Dr. Hui also said that networking within the SHM community has been encouraging. “I’ve met talented Fellows at a number of hospital medicine annual conferences who have inspired me in the areas of patient care, education, and health promotion,” she explained. “Some of them have extensive publications; they are truly amazing physicians. SHM’s Annual Conference provides great opportunities for networking.”

As Dr. Hui continues to progress her career in hospital medicine, she believes that communication is a key pillar in her success. “Be a true listener and fill your heart with compassion, empathy, and courage,” she said. “Recognize your role as the enabler for the patients to improve their health.”

Completing her Master’s degree in population health management at Johns Hopkins University and expecting to graduate in May 2020, Dr. Hui is the designer of system safety (comprising patient safety, second victim safety, quality improvement, and just culture) in the academic setting of her residency program. She is also chairing a pioneer project for the St. Vincent IM residency program.

Dr. Hui plans to apply for a Senior Fellow designation with SHM in the future.

If you would like to join Dr. Hui and other like-minded hospital medicine leaders in taking your career to the next level, SHM is currently recruiting for the Fellows and Senior Fellows: Class of 2020. Applications are open until Nov. 29 of this year. These designations are available across a variety of membership categories, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified practice administrators. Dedicated to promoting excellence, innovation, and improving the quality of patient care, Fellows designations provide members with a distinguishing credential as established pioneers in the industry.

For more information and to review your eligibility, visit hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

In an industry brimming with opportunity and ongoing transformation, it is easy to feel indecisive about your next professional step when ample career paths exist in hospital medicine.

Yingkei Hui, MD, FHM, is an academic hospitalist at St. Vincent Indianapolis, and a Society of Hospital Medicine member since 2015. Seeking to set herself apart as an aspiring patient safety and quality improvement leader while continuing her professional development, she looked to SHM’s Fellow designation as the next piece of her career puzzle.

With more than 14 years of experience in the health care industry, Dr. Hui fell in love with the specialty because of its flexibility and patient-centric focus.

“I have a broad interest in medicine and want to learn everything under the larger umbrella of medicine,” she said. “I also find myself deeply in love with hospital medicine because it provides me with the opportunity to participate in various hospital committees and allows me to enjoy my practice from a macroscopic view of U.S. health care transformation – especially given the popular value-based patient care approach from recent years.”

Dr. Hui’s breadth of experience has allowed her to gain a unique set of perspectives and experiences from international and domestic standpoints. From attending medical school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to completing her residency on the east coast at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia – part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System – Dr. Hui has held active medical licenses in New Jersey and currently, Indiana.

“SHM’s Fellow designation allows me to challenge myself in setting my career goal as a patient safety and quality improvement leader in my program,” she said. “It means a lot to me as it is a stand-out recognition of my participation in and contribution to patient care in my institution.”

When asked about the most rewarding aspect of being a part of the hospital medicine community, Dr. Hui identified “satisfaction in the teaching role.” She said she is “motivated by the holistic care for the patients, the integration of medical knowledge and coordination of care, and also the opportunity to conduct quality improvement projects.”

Motivated by her colleagues, Dr. Hui credits SHM with providing her with the inspiration and tools to push herself and advance her career in hospital medicine.

“I enjoy immersing myself in SHM’s patient safety and quality improvement resources; they are perfect for frontline hospitalists and also provide CME [continuing medical education],” she noted. “My previous medical directors were all Senior Fellows; they are my role models and continue to inspire me throughout my career.”

Dr. Hui also said that networking within the SHM community has been encouraging. “I’ve met talented Fellows at a number of hospital medicine annual conferences who have inspired me in the areas of patient care, education, and health promotion,” she explained. “Some of them have extensive publications; they are truly amazing physicians. SHM’s Annual Conference provides great opportunities for networking.”

As Dr. Hui continues to progress her career in hospital medicine, she believes that communication is a key pillar in her success. “Be a true listener and fill your heart with compassion, empathy, and courage,” she said. “Recognize your role as the enabler for the patients to improve their health.”

Completing her Master’s degree in population health management at Johns Hopkins University and expecting to graduate in May 2020, Dr. Hui is the designer of system safety (comprising patient safety, second victim safety, quality improvement, and just culture) in the academic setting of her residency program. She is also chairing a pioneer project for the St. Vincent IM residency program.

Dr. Hui plans to apply for a Senior Fellow designation with SHM in the future.

If you would like to join Dr. Hui and other like-minded hospital medicine leaders in taking your career to the next level, SHM is currently recruiting for the Fellows and Senior Fellows: Class of 2020. Applications are open until Nov. 29 of this year. These designations are available across a variety of membership categories, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified practice administrators. Dedicated to promoting excellence, innovation, and improving the quality of patient care, Fellows designations provide members with a distinguishing credential as established pioneers in the industry.

For more information and to review your eligibility, visit hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

In an industry brimming with opportunity and ongoing transformation, it is easy to feel indecisive about your next professional step when ample career paths exist in hospital medicine.

Yingkei Hui, MD, FHM, is an academic hospitalist at St. Vincent Indianapolis, and a Society of Hospital Medicine member since 2015. Seeking to set herself apart as an aspiring patient safety and quality improvement leader while continuing her professional development, she looked to SHM’s Fellow designation as the next piece of her career puzzle.

With more than 14 years of experience in the health care industry, Dr. Hui fell in love with the specialty because of its flexibility and patient-centric focus.

“I have a broad interest in medicine and want to learn everything under the larger umbrella of medicine,” she said. “I also find myself deeply in love with hospital medicine because it provides me with the opportunity to participate in various hospital committees and allows me to enjoy my practice from a macroscopic view of U.S. health care transformation – especially given the popular value-based patient care approach from recent years.”

Dr. Hui’s breadth of experience has allowed her to gain a unique set of perspectives and experiences from international and domestic standpoints. From attending medical school at the Chinese University of Hong Kong to completing her residency on the east coast at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia – part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System – Dr. Hui has held active medical licenses in New Jersey and currently, Indiana.

“SHM’s Fellow designation allows me to challenge myself in setting my career goal as a patient safety and quality improvement leader in my program,” she said. “It means a lot to me as it is a stand-out recognition of my participation in and contribution to patient care in my institution.”

When asked about the most rewarding aspect of being a part of the hospital medicine community, Dr. Hui identified “satisfaction in the teaching role.” She said she is “motivated by the holistic care for the patients, the integration of medical knowledge and coordination of care, and also the opportunity to conduct quality improvement projects.”

Motivated by her colleagues, Dr. Hui credits SHM with providing her with the inspiration and tools to push herself and advance her career in hospital medicine.

“I enjoy immersing myself in SHM’s patient safety and quality improvement resources; they are perfect for frontline hospitalists and also provide CME [continuing medical education],” she noted. “My previous medical directors were all Senior Fellows; they are my role models and continue to inspire me throughout my career.”

Dr. Hui also said that networking within the SHM community has been encouraging. “I’ve met talented Fellows at a number of hospital medicine annual conferences who have inspired me in the areas of patient care, education, and health promotion,” she explained. “Some of them have extensive publications; they are truly amazing physicians. SHM’s Annual Conference provides great opportunities for networking.”

As Dr. Hui continues to progress her career in hospital medicine, she believes that communication is a key pillar in her success. “Be a true listener and fill your heart with compassion, empathy, and courage,” she said. “Recognize your role as the enabler for the patients to improve their health.”

Completing her Master’s degree in population health management at Johns Hopkins University and expecting to graduate in May 2020, Dr. Hui is the designer of system safety (comprising patient safety, second victim safety, quality improvement, and just culture) in the academic setting of her residency program. She is also chairing a pioneer project for the St. Vincent IM residency program.

Dr. Hui plans to apply for a Senior Fellow designation with SHM in the future.

If you would like to join Dr. Hui and other like-minded hospital medicine leaders in taking your career to the next level, SHM is currently recruiting for the Fellows and Senior Fellows: Class of 2020. Applications are open until Nov. 29 of this year. These designations are available across a variety of membership categories, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified practice administrators. Dedicated to promoting excellence, innovation, and improving the quality of patient care, Fellows designations provide members with a distinguishing credential as established pioneers in the industry.

For more information and to review your eligibility, visit hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
 

Ms. Cowan is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Despite an increasingly diverse workforce, a new study has found that many patients remain biased toward certain physicians, which can produce substantial negative – and occasionally positive – effects.

“Addressing demeaning behavior from patients will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospital leadership to create an environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike,” wrote Margaret Wheeler, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To determine the perspectives of physicians and trainees in regard to patient bias, along with potential barriers to responding effectively, the researchers led 13 focus groups attended by internal 11 medicine hospitalist physicians, 26 internal medicine residents, and 13 medical students affiliated with the UCSF School of Medicine. In terms of gender, 26 participants identified as women, 22 as men, and 2 as gender nonconforming. In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 26 were white, 8 were Latinx, 7 were Asian, 3 were South Asian, 1 was Middle Eastern, and 5 were black.

In describing biased and demeaning patient behavior, the participants recalled remarks that ranged from refusal of care and questioning the clinician’s role to ethnic jokes, questions as to their ethnic backgrounds, inappropriate flirtations or compliments. The effects of these behaviors on the participants included negative responses like carrying an emotional burden and withdrawing from work, along with positive responses like an increased desire for self-growth and to pursue leadership opportunities.

Barriers to addressing these behaviors included a lack of support, uncertainty as to the appropriate response, and a fear of being perceived as unprofessional. Deciding how to respond – or to respond at all – was often dictated by the level of support from colleagues, a professional responsibility to peers, and the presence of a positive role model who would’ve done the same.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including only knowing the views of those who were interviewed. In addition, all participants came from a medical school located in a diverse city that embraces different cultures, meaning their findings “may not reflect the experiences of physicians in other geographic regions.”

The study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wheeler M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4122.

Despite an increasingly diverse workforce, a new study has found that many patients remain biased toward certain physicians, which can produce substantial negative – and occasionally positive – effects.

“Addressing demeaning behavior from patients will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospital leadership to create an environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike,” wrote Margaret Wheeler, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To determine the perspectives of physicians and trainees in regard to patient bias, along with potential barriers to responding effectively, the researchers led 13 focus groups attended by internal 11 medicine hospitalist physicians, 26 internal medicine residents, and 13 medical students affiliated with the UCSF School of Medicine. In terms of gender, 26 participants identified as women, 22 as men, and 2 as gender nonconforming. In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 26 were white, 8 were Latinx, 7 were Asian, 3 were South Asian, 1 was Middle Eastern, and 5 were black.

In describing biased and demeaning patient behavior, the participants recalled remarks that ranged from refusal of care and questioning the clinician’s role to ethnic jokes, questions as to their ethnic backgrounds, inappropriate flirtations or compliments. The effects of these behaviors on the participants included negative responses like carrying an emotional burden and withdrawing from work, along with positive responses like an increased desire for self-growth and to pursue leadership opportunities.

Barriers to addressing these behaviors included a lack of support, uncertainty as to the appropriate response, and a fear of being perceived as unprofessional. Deciding how to respond – or to respond at all – was often dictated by the level of support from colleagues, a professional responsibility to peers, and the presence of a positive role model who would’ve done the same.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including only knowing the views of those who were interviewed. In addition, all participants came from a medical school located in a diverse city that embraces different cultures, meaning their findings “may not reflect the experiences of physicians in other geographic regions.”

The study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wheeler M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4122.

Despite an increasingly diverse workforce, a new study has found that many patients remain biased toward certain physicians, which can produce substantial negative – and occasionally positive – effects.

“Addressing demeaning behavior from patients will require a concerted effort from medical schools and hospital leadership to create an environment that respects the diversity of patients and physicians alike,” wrote Margaret Wheeler, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and her coauthors. The study was published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

To determine the perspectives of physicians and trainees in regard to patient bias, along with potential barriers to responding effectively, the researchers led 13 focus groups attended by internal 11 medicine hospitalist physicians, 26 internal medicine residents, and 13 medical students affiliated with the UCSF School of Medicine. In terms of gender, 26 participants identified as women, 22 as men, and 2 as gender nonconforming. In terms of racial and ethnic diversity, 26 were white, 8 were Latinx, 7 were Asian, 3 were South Asian, 1 was Middle Eastern, and 5 were black.

In describing biased and demeaning patient behavior, the participants recalled remarks that ranged from refusal of care and questioning the clinician’s role to ethnic jokes, questions as to their ethnic backgrounds, inappropriate flirtations or compliments. The effects of these behaviors on the participants included negative responses like carrying an emotional burden and withdrawing from work, along with positive responses like an increased desire for self-growth and to pursue leadership opportunities.

Barriers to addressing these behaviors included a lack of support, uncertainty as to the appropriate response, and a fear of being perceived as unprofessional. Deciding how to respond – or to respond at all – was often dictated by the level of support from colleagues, a professional responsibility to peers, and the presence of a positive role model who would’ve done the same.

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including only knowing the views of those who were interviewed. In addition, all participants came from a medical school located in a diverse city that embraces different cultures, meaning their findings “may not reflect the experiences of physicians in other geographic regions.”

The study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wheeler M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4122.

NEW ORLEANS – Reduction of readmission rates among individuals hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD could reduce mortality and health care expenditures, results of a large, retrospective study suggest.

“This is not a small problem,” Dr. Krishnan said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “The amount of money that can be saved can be put into primary care for curbing COPD and better patient outcomes, basically, if you’re able to put in checkpoints to stop this problem.”

Bundled care interventions by interdisciplinary teams have thus far proven effective at improving quality of care and improving process measures in this setting, said Dr. Krishnan.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Krishnan and colleagues included 530,229 adult patients in the 2016 National Readmission Database who had a principal diagnosis of acute COPD exacerbation. The mean age of the patients was 68 years, and 58% were female.

The rates of readmission at 30 days after discharge were 16.3% for any cause and 5.4% specifically for COPD, the researchers found. Of note, the in-hospital mortality rate increased from 1.1% to 3.8% during readmission (P less than .01), Dr. Krishnan said.

Readmissions were linked to a cumulative length of stay of 458,677 days, with corresponding hospital costs of $0.97 billion and charges of $4.0 billion; the COPD-specific readmissions were associated with cumulative length of stay of 132,026 days, costs of $253 million, and charges of $1 billion, Dr. Krishnan reported.

Dr. Krishnan and coauthors disclosed no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Krishnan AM et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.229.

NEW ORLEANS – Reduction of readmission rates among individuals hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD could reduce mortality and health care expenditures, results of a large, retrospective study suggest.

“This is not a small problem,” Dr. Krishnan said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “The amount of money that can be saved can be put into primary care for curbing COPD and better patient outcomes, basically, if you’re able to put in checkpoints to stop this problem.”

Bundled care interventions by interdisciplinary teams have thus far proven effective at improving quality of care and improving process measures in this setting, said Dr. Krishnan.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Krishnan and colleagues included 530,229 adult patients in the 2016 National Readmission Database who had a principal diagnosis of acute COPD exacerbation. The mean age of the patients was 68 years, and 58% were female.

The rates of readmission at 30 days after discharge were 16.3% for any cause and 5.4% specifically for COPD, the researchers found. Of note, the in-hospital mortality rate increased from 1.1% to 3.8% during readmission (P less than .01), Dr. Krishnan said.

Readmissions were linked to a cumulative length of stay of 458,677 days, with corresponding hospital costs of $0.97 billion and charges of $4.0 billion; the COPD-specific readmissions were associated with cumulative length of stay of 132,026 days, costs of $253 million, and charges of $1 billion, Dr. Krishnan reported.

Dr. Krishnan and coauthors disclosed no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Krishnan AM et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.229.

NEW ORLEANS – Reduction of readmission rates among individuals hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD could reduce mortality and health care expenditures, results of a large, retrospective study suggest.

“This is not a small problem,” Dr. Krishnan said in a podium presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians. “The amount of money that can be saved can be put into primary care for curbing COPD and better patient outcomes, basically, if you’re able to put in checkpoints to stop this problem.”

Bundled care interventions by interdisciplinary teams have thus far proven effective at improving quality of care and improving process measures in this setting, said Dr. Krishnan.

The retrospective cohort study by Dr. Krishnan and colleagues included 530,229 adult patients in the 2016 National Readmission Database who had a principal diagnosis of acute COPD exacerbation. The mean age of the patients was 68 years, and 58% were female.

The rates of readmission at 30 days after discharge were 16.3% for any cause and 5.4% specifically for COPD, the researchers found. Of note, the in-hospital mortality rate increased from 1.1% to 3.8% during readmission (P less than .01), Dr. Krishnan said.

Readmissions were linked to a cumulative length of stay of 458,677 days, with corresponding hospital costs of $0.97 billion and charges of $4.0 billion; the COPD-specific readmissions were associated with cumulative length of stay of 132,026 days, costs of $253 million, and charges of $1 billion, Dr. Krishnan reported.

Dr. Krishnan and coauthors disclosed no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Krishnan AM et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.229.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received opioids or benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hospitalization for respiratory-related adverse events, according to recent research from Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

sdominick/Getty Images

In addition, the risk of hospitalization because of respiratory events for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was greater when opioid and benzodiazepine medications were combined, compared with patients who did not take either medication, Jacques G. Baillargeon, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the University of Texas, Galveston, and colleagues wrote.

“Patients with COPD and their physicians should judiciously assess the risks and benefits of opioids and benzodiazepines, alone and in combination, and preferentially recommend nonopioid and nonbenzodiazepine approaches for pain, sleep, and anxiety management in patients with COPD,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers performed a case-control study of 3,232 Medicare beneficiary cases of COPD patients who were aged at least 66 years. Patients were included if they experienced a hospitalization related to a COPD-related adverse event with a respiratory diagnosis in 2014 and then matched to one or two control patients (total, 6,247 patients) based on age at hospitalization, gender, COPD medication, COPD complexity, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic status. COPD complexity was assigned to three levels (low, moderate, high) and calculated using the patient’s comorbid respiratory conditions and associated medical procedures in the 12 months prior to their hospitalization.

They found that, in the 30 days before COPD-related hospitalization, use of opioids was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.97), as was use of benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.66). When patients used both opioids and benzodiazepines, they had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not use opioids or benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.94-2.77).

In the 60 days prior to hospitalization, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization among COPD patients who used opioids (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.47-1.88), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.93-2.67); at 90 days, this higher risk of hospitalization persisted among COPD patients taking opioids (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.88-2.59).

The researchers acknowledged that one potential limitation in the study was how COPD diagnoses were obtained through coding performed by clinicians instead of from laboratory testing. Confounding by COPD indication and severity; use of over-the-counter medication or opioids and benzodiazepines received illegally; and lack of analyses of potential confounders such as diet, alcohol use, smoking status and herbal supplement use were other limitations.

This study was supported by an award from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baillargeon had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Baillargeon JG et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201901-024OC.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received opioids or benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hospitalization for respiratory-related adverse events, according to recent research from Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

sdominick/Getty Images

In addition, the risk of hospitalization because of respiratory events for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was greater when opioid and benzodiazepine medications were combined, compared with patients who did not take either medication, Jacques G. Baillargeon, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the University of Texas, Galveston, and colleagues wrote.

“Patients with COPD and their physicians should judiciously assess the risks and benefits of opioids and benzodiazepines, alone and in combination, and preferentially recommend nonopioid and nonbenzodiazepine approaches for pain, sleep, and anxiety management in patients with COPD,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers performed a case-control study of 3,232 Medicare beneficiary cases of COPD patients who were aged at least 66 years. Patients were included if they experienced a hospitalization related to a COPD-related adverse event with a respiratory diagnosis in 2014 and then matched to one or two control patients (total, 6,247 patients) based on age at hospitalization, gender, COPD medication, COPD complexity, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic status. COPD complexity was assigned to three levels (low, moderate, high) and calculated using the patient’s comorbid respiratory conditions and associated medical procedures in the 12 months prior to their hospitalization.

They found that, in the 30 days before COPD-related hospitalization, use of opioids was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.97), as was use of benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.66). When patients used both opioids and benzodiazepines, they had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not use opioids or benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.94-2.77).

In the 60 days prior to hospitalization, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization among COPD patients who used opioids (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.47-1.88), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.93-2.67); at 90 days, this higher risk of hospitalization persisted among COPD patients taking opioids (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.88-2.59).

The researchers acknowledged that one potential limitation in the study was how COPD diagnoses were obtained through coding performed by clinicians instead of from laboratory testing. Confounding by COPD indication and severity; use of over-the-counter medication or opioids and benzodiazepines received illegally; and lack of analyses of potential confounders such as diet, alcohol use, smoking status and herbal supplement use were other limitations.

This study was supported by an award from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baillargeon had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Baillargeon JG et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201901-024OC.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who received opioids or benzodiazepines had a greater risk of hospitalization for respiratory-related adverse events, according to recent research from Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

sdominick/Getty Images

In addition, the risk of hospitalization because of respiratory events for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was greater when opioid and benzodiazepine medications were combined, compared with patients who did not take either medication, Jacques G. Baillargeon, PhD, of the department of preventive medicine and community health at the University of Texas, Galveston, and colleagues wrote.

“Patients with COPD and their physicians should judiciously assess the risks and benefits of opioids and benzodiazepines, alone and in combination, and preferentially recommend nonopioid and nonbenzodiazepine approaches for pain, sleep, and anxiety management in patients with COPD,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers performed a case-control study of 3,232 Medicare beneficiary cases of COPD patients who were aged at least 66 years. Patients were included if they experienced a hospitalization related to a COPD-related adverse event with a respiratory diagnosis in 2014 and then matched to one or two control patients (total, 6,247 patients) based on age at hospitalization, gender, COPD medication, COPD complexity, obstructive sleep apnea, and socioeconomic status. COPD complexity was assigned to three levels (low, moderate, high) and calculated using the patient’s comorbid respiratory conditions and associated medical procedures in the 12 months prior to their hospitalization.

They found that, in the 30 days before COPD-related hospitalization, use of opioids was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.97), as was use of benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.66). When patients used both opioids and benzodiazepines, they had a significantly higher risk of hospitalization, compared with patients who did not use opioids or benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.94-2.77).

In the 60 days prior to hospitalization, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization among COPD patients who used opioids (aOR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.47-1.88), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.93-2.67); at 90 days, this higher risk of hospitalization persisted among COPD patients taking opioids (aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.40-1.78), benzodiazepines (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63), and both opioids and benzodiazepines (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.88-2.59).

The researchers acknowledged that one potential limitation in the study was how COPD diagnoses were obtained through coding performed by clinicians instead of from laboratory testing. Confounding by COPD indication and severity; use of over-the-counter medication or opioids and benzodiazepines received illegally; and lack of analyses of potential confounders such as diet, alcohol use, smoking status and herbal supplement use were other limitations.

This study was supported by an award from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Baillargeon had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Baillargeon JG et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201901-024OC.

Presenters

Jared Austin, MD, FAAP

Ryan Bode, MD, FAAP

Jeremy Kern, MD, FAAP

Mary Ottolini, MD, MPH, MEd, FAAP

Stacy Pierson, MD, FAAP

Mary Rocha, MD, MPH, FAAP

Susan Walley, MD, CTTS, FAAP

Session summary

Professional development sessions at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 conference intended to further educate pediatric hospitalists and advance their careers. In November 2019, many pediatric hospitalists will be taking subspecialty PHM boards for the very first time. This PHM19 session had clear objectives: to describe the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM board content areas, to analyze common knowledge gaps in PREP PHM, and to examine different approaches to clinical management of PHM patients.

The session opened with a brief history of a vision of PHM and the story of its realization. In 2016, a group of eight stalwart writers, four new writers, and three editors created PREP 2018 and 2019 questions that were released in full prior to November 2019. The ABP will offer the board exam in 2019, 2021, and 2023

The exam content domains include the following:

• Medical conditions.
• Behavioral and mental health conditions.
• Newborn care.
• Children with medical complexity.
• Medical procedures.
• Patient and family centered care.
• Transitions of care.
• Quality improvement, patient safety and system based improvement.
• Evidence-based, high-value care.
• Advocacy and leadership.
• Ethics, legal issues, and human rights.
• Teaching and education.
• Core knowledge in scholarly activities.

Each question consists of a case vignette, question, response choices, critiques, PREP PEARLs, and references. There are also additional PREP Ponder Points that intend to prompt reflection on practice change.

For the remainder of the session presenters reviewed the PHM PREP questions that were most frequently answered incorrectly. Some of the topics included: asthma vs. anaphylaxis, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in surgical patients, postoperative feeding regimens, transmission-based precautions, febrile neonates, Ebola, medical child abuse, absolute indications for intubation, toxic megacolon, palivizumab prophylaxis guidelines, key driver diagrams, and infantile hemangiomas.
 

Key takeaway

Pediatric hospitalists all over the United States will for the first time ever take PHM boards in November 2019. The exam content domains were demonstrated in detail, and several often incorrectly answered PREP questions were presented and discussed.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor in pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York.

Presenters

Jared Austin, MD, FAAP

Ryan Bode, MD, FAAP

Jeremy Kern, MD, FAAP

Mary Ottolini, MD, MPH, MEd, FAAP

Stacy Pierson, MD, FAAP

Mary Rocha, MD, MPH, FAAP

Susan Walley, MD, CTTS, FAAP

Session summary

Professional development sessions at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 conference intended to further educate pediatric hospitalists and advance their careers. In November 2019, many pediatric hospitalists will be taking subspecialty PHM boards for the very first time. This PHM19 session had clear objectives: to describe the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM board content areas, to analyze common knowledge gaps in PREP PHM, and to examine different approaches to clinical management of PHM patients.

The session opened with a brief history of a vision of PHM and the story of its realization. In 2016, a group of eight stalwart writers, four new writers, and three editors created PREP 2018 and 2019 questions that were released in full prior to November 2019. The ABP will offer the board exam in 2019, 2021, and 2023

The exam content domains include the following:

• Medical conditions.
• Behavioral and mental health conditions.
• Newborn care.
• Children with medical complexity.
• Medical procedures.
• Patient and family centered care.
• Transitions of care.
• Quality improvement, patient safety and system based improvement.
• Evidence-based, high-value care.
• Advocacy and leadership.
• Ethics, legal issues, and human rights.
• Teaching and education.
• Core knowledge in scholarly activities.

Each question consists of a case vignette, question, response choices, critiques, PREP PEARLs, and references. There are also additional PREP Ponder Points that intend to prompt reflection on practice change.

For the remainder of the session presenters reviewed the PHM PREP questions that were most frequently answered incorrectly. Some of the topics included: asthma vs. anaphylaxis, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in surgical patients, postoperative feeding regimens, transmission-based precautions, febrile neonates, Ebola, medical child abuse, absolute indications for intubation, toxic megacolon, palivizumab prophylaxis guidelines, key driver diagrams, and infantile hemangiomas.
 

Key takeaway

Pediatric hospitalists all over the United States will for the first time ever take PHM boards in November 2019. The exam content domains were demonstrated in detail, and several often incorrectly answered PREP questions were presented and discussed.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor in pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York.

Presenters

Jared Austin, MD, FAAP

Ryan Bode, MD, FAAP

Jeremy Kern, MD, FAAP

Mary Ottolini, MD, MPH, MEd, FAAP

Stacy Pierson, MD, FAAP

Mary Rocha, MD, MPH, FAAP

Susan Walley, MD, CTTS, FAAP

Session summary

Professional development sessions at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 conference intended to further educate pediatric hospitalists and advance their careers. In November 2019, many pediatric hospitalists will be taking subspecialty PHM boards for the very first time. This PHM19 session had clear objectives: to describe the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM board content areas, to analyze common knowledge gaps in PREP PHM, and to examine different approaches to clinical management of PHM patients.

The session opened with a brief history of a vision of PHM and the story of its realization. In 2016, a group of eight stalwart writers, four new writers, and three editors created PREP 2018 and 2019 questions that were released in full prior to November 2019. The ABP will offer the board exam in 2019, 2021, and 2023

The exam content domains include the following:

• Medical conditions.
• Behavioral and mental health conditions.
• Newborn care.
• Children with medical complexity.
• Medical procedures.
• Patient and family centered care.
• Transitions of care.
• Quality improvement, patient safety and system based improvement.
• Evidence-based, high-value care.
• Advocacy and leadership.
• Ethics, legal issues, and human rights.
• Teaching and education.
• Core knowledge in scholarly activities.

Each question consists of a case vignette, question, response choices, critiques, PREP PEARLs, and references. There are also additional PREP Ponder Points that intend to prompt reflection on practice change.

For the remainder of the session presenters reviewed the PHM PREP questions that were most frequently answered incorrectly. Some of the topics included: asthma vs. anaphylaxis, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in surgical patients, postoperative feeding regimens, transmission-based precautions, febrile neonates, Ebola, medical child abuse, absolute indications for intubation, toxic megacolon, palivizumab prophylaxis guidelines, key driver diagrams, and infantile hemangiomas.
 

Key takeaway

Pediatric hospitalists all over the United States will for the first time ever take PHM boards in November 2019. The exam content domains were demonstrated in detail, and several often incorrectly answered PREP questions were presented and discussed.

Dr. Giordano is assistant professor in pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, New York.

WASHINGTON – The practice of medicine needs a major reset to address the stresses that lead to clinician burnout, a condition now estimated to affect a third to a half of clinicians in the United States, according to a report from an influential federal panel.

The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) on Oct. 23 released a report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report calls for a broad and unified approach to tackling the root causes of burnout.

There must be a concerted effort by leaders of many fields of health care to create less stressful workplaces for clinicians, Pascale Carayon, PhD, cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the NAM press event.

“This is not an easy process,” said Dr. Carayon, a researcher into patient safety issues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There is no single solution.”

The NAM report assigns specific tasks to many different participants in health care through a six-goal approach, as described below.

–Create positive workplaces. Leaders of health care systems should consider how their business and management decisions will affect clinicians’ jobs, taking into account the potential to add to their levels of burnout. Executives need to continuously monitor and evaluate the extent of burnout in their organizations, and report on this at least annually.

–Address burnout in training and in clinicians’ early years. Medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools should consider steps such as monitoring workload, implementing pass-fail grading, improving access to scholarships and affordable loans, and creating new loan repayment systems.

–Reduce administrative burden. Federal and state bodies and organizations such as the National Quality Forum should reconsider how their regulations and recommendations contribute to burnout. Organizations should seek to eliminate tasks that do not improve the care of patients.

–Improve usability and relevance of health information technology (IT). Medical organizations should develop and buy systems that are as user-friendly and easy to operate as possible. They also should look to use IT to reduce documentation demands and automate nonessential tasks.

–Reduce stigma and improve burnout recovery services. State officials and legislative bodies should make it easier for clinicians to use employee assistance programs, peer support programs, and mental health providers without the information being admissible in malpractice litigation. The report notes the recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association on limiting inquiries in licensing applications about a clinician’s mental health. Questions should focus on current impairment rather than reach well into a clinician’s past.

–Create a national research agenda on clinician well-being. By the end of 2020, federal agencies – including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – should develop a coordinated research agenda on clinician burnout, the report said.

In casting a wide net and assigning specific tasks, the NAM report seeks to establish efforts to address clinician burnout as a broad and shared responsibility. It would be too easy for different medical organizations to depict addressing burnout as being outside of their responsibilities, Christine K. Cassel, MD, the cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the press event.

WASHINGTON – The practice of medicine needs a major reset to address the stresses that lead to clinician burnout, a condition now estimated to affect a third to a half of clinicians in the United States, according to a report from an influential federal panel.

The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) on Oct. 23 released a report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report calls for a broad and unified approach to tackling the root causes of burnout.

There must be a concerted effort by leaders of many fields of health care to create less stressful workplaces for clinicians, Pascale Carayon, PhD, cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the NAM press event.

“This is not an easy process,” said Dr. Carayon, a researcher into patient safety issues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There is no single solution.”

The NAM report assigns specific tasks to many different participants in health care through a six-goal approach, as described below.

–Create positive workplaces. Leaders of health care systems should consider how their business and management decisions will affect clinicians’ jobs, taking into account the potential to add to their levels of burnout. Executives need to continuously monitor and evaluate the extent of burnout in their organizations, and report on this at least annually.

–Address burnout in training and in clinicians’ early years. Medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools should consider steps such as monitoring workload, implementing pass-fail grading, improving access to scholarships and affordable loans, and creating new loan repayment systems.

–Reduce administrative burden. Federal and state bodies and organizations such as the National Quality Forum should reconsider how their regulations and recommendations contribute to burnout. Organizations should seek to eliminate tasks that do not improve the care of patients.

–Improve usability and relevance of health information technology (IT). Medical organizations should develop and buy systems that are as user-friendly and easy to operate as possible. They also should look to use IT to reduce documentation demands and automate nonessential tasks.

–Reduce stigma and improve burnout recovery services. State officials and legislative bodies should make it easier for clinicians to use employee assistance programs, peer support programs, and mental health providers without the information being admissible in malpractice litigation. The report notes the recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association on limiting inquiries in licensing applications about a clinician’s mental health. Questions should focus on current impairment rather than reach well into a clinician’s past.

–Create a national research agenda on clinician well-being. By the end of 2020, federal agencies – including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – should develop a coordinated research agenda on clinician burnout, the report said.

In casting a wide net and assigning specific tasks, the NAM report seeks to establish efforts to address clinician burnout as a broad and shared responsibility. It would be too easy for different medical organizations to depict addressing burnout as being outside of their responsibilities, Christine K. Cassel, MD, the cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the press event.

WASHINGTON – The practice of medicine needs a major reset to address the stresses that lead to clinician burnout, a condition now estimated to affect a third to a half of clinicians in the United States, according to a report from an influential federal panel.

The National Academy of Medicine (NAM) on Oct. 23 released a report, “Taking Action Against Clinician Burnout: A Systems Approach to Professional Well-Being.” The report calls for a broad and unified approach to tackling the root causes of burnout.

There must be a concerted effort by leaders of many fields of health care to create less stressful workplaces for clinicians, Pascale Carayon, PhD, cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the NAM press event.

“This is not an easy process,” said Dr. Carayon, a researcher into patient safety issues at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. “There is no single solution.”

The NAM report assigns specific tasks to many different participants in health care through a six-goal approach, as described below.

–Create positive workplaces. Leaders of health care systems should consider how their business and management decisions will affect clinicians’ jobs, taking into account the potential to add to their levels of burnout. Executives need to continuously monitor and evaluate the extent of burnout in their organizations, and report on this at least annually.

–Address burnout in training and in clinicians’ early years. Medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools should consider steps such as monitoring workload, implementing pass-fail grading, improving access to scholarships and affordable loans, and creating new loan repayment systems.

–Reduce administrative burden. Federal and state bodies and organizations such as the National Quality Forum should reconsider how their regulations and recommendations contribute to burnout. Organizations should seek to eliminate tasks that do not improve the care of patients.

–Improve usability and relevance of health information technology (IT). Medical organizations should develop and buy systems that are as user-friendly and easy to operate as possible. They also should look to use IT to reduce documentation demands and automate nonessential tasks.

–Reduce stigma and improve burnout recovery services. State officials and legislative bodies should make it easier for clinicians to use employee assistance programs, peer support programs, and mental health providers without the information being admissible in malpractice litigation. The report notes the recommendations from the Federation of State Medical Boards, American Medical Association, and the American Psychiatric Association on limiting inquiries in licensing applications about a clinician’s mental health. Questions should focus on current impairment rather than reach well into a clinician’s past.

–Create a national research agenda on clinician well-being. By the end of 2020, federal agencies – including the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – should develop a coordinated research agenda on clinician burnout, the report said.

In casting a wide net and assigning specific tasks, the NAM report seeks to establish efforts to address clinician burnout as a broad and shared responsibility. It would be too easy for different medical organizations to depict addressing burnout as being outside of their responsibilities, Christine K. Cassel, MD, the cochair of the NAM committee that produced the report, said during the press event.

I have always enjoyed talking with my patients from coastal Louisiana. They enjoy life, embrace their environment, and give me a perspective which is both similar and different than that of residents of New Orleans where I practice hospital medicine.

Bernhard_Staehli/Thinkstock

Their hospitalization is often a reflective moment in their lives. Lately I have been asking them about their advice to their children concerning the future of southern Louisiana in reference to sea rise, global warming, and increasing climatic events. More often than not, they have been telling their children it is time to move away.

These are a people who have strong devotion to family, but they are also practical. More than anything they would like their children to stay and preserve their heritage, but concern for their children’s future outweighs that. They have not come to this conclusion by scientific reports, but rather by what is happening before them. This group of people doesn’t alarm easily, but they see the unrelenting evidence of land loss and sea rise before them with little reason to believe it will change.

I am normally not one to speak out about climate change. Like most I have listened to the continuous alarms sounded by experts but have always assumed someone more qualified than myself should lead the efforts. But when I see the tangible effects of climate change both in my own life and the lives of my patients, I feel a sense of urgency.

12 years

Twelve years. That is the time we have to significantly reduce carbon emissions before catastrophic and potentially irreversible events will occur. This evidence is according to the authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in October 2018. The report states urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to limit temperature elevations of 1.5°C and 2°C, as compared with the preindustrial era. Exceeding a 2°C elevation will likely lead to global adverse events at an unprecedented level.¹

The events forecast by the U.N. report are not abstract, particularly as they relate to public health. With high confidence, the report outlines with high specificity: increases in extreme heat, floods, crop failures, and a multitude of economic and social stressors which will affect the care of our most vulnerable patients.¹

This statement by Dr. Dana Hanson, president of the World Medical Association, summarizes the effects of climate change on the delivery of health care: “Climate change represents an inevitable massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major pandemics as a leading cause of death in the 21st century.”

So, what does the health care system have to do with climate change and its primary driver, carbon emissions? More than I realized, as the U.S. health care industry produces 10% of the nation’s carbon emissions.² If the U.S. health care system was a country it would be ranked seventh, ahead of the United Kingdom; 10% of all smog and 9% of all particulate-related respiratory disease can be attributed to the carbon emissions of the health care industry. This breaks down to possibly 20,000 premature deaths per year.² Our current health care industry is a significant driver of environmentally related disease and will continue to be so, unless major change occurs.

Although much of it is behind the scenes, providing health care 24/7 is a highly energy-intensive and waste-producing endeavor. Many of the innovations to reduce carbon emissions that have been seen in other industries have lagged behind in health care, as we have focused on other issues.

But the health care system is transitioning. It strives to address the whole person, including where they live, work, and play. A key component of this will be addressing our impact on the environments we serve. How can we make that argument if we don’t first address our own impact on the climate?

Carbon-neutral health care

Health care is one of the few industries that has the economic clout, the scientific basis, the community engagement, and perhaps most importantly the motivations to “first, do no harm” that could lead a national (if not a global) transformation in environmental stewardship among all industries.

Many agree that action is needed, but is essential that we set specific meaningful goals that take into account the urgency of the situation. One possible solution is to encourage every health care system to begin the process of becoming carbon neutral. Simply defined, carbon neutrality is balancing the activities that result in carbon emissions with activities that reduce carbon emissions. Carbon neutrality has become the standard by which an industry’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions is measured. The measurement is standardized and achievable, and the basic concept is understood by most. It results not only in long-term benefits to climate change, but immediate improvement of air quality in the local community. In addition, achieving carbon neutrality serves as a catalyst of new desired industries, improves employee morale, and aids in recruitment.³

So, what would a carbon-neutral health care system look like? In short, sustainability should be considered in all of its actions. Risks and benefits would be contemplated, as we do with all treatments, except now environmental risks would be brought into the equation. This includes the obvious, such as purchasing and supporting the development of renewable energy, but also transportation of patients and employees, food supply chains, and even the use of virtual visits to reduce the environmental impact of patient transportation.

I am optimistic that carbon neutrality is achievable in the health care sector. It can drive economic development and engage the community in environmental stewardship efforts. But time is of the essence and leaders for these efforts are needed now. As hospitalists, we are on the front lines of the health care system. We see the direct impact of social, economic, and environmental issues on our patients. We have credibility with both our patients and hospital administration. Among all industries, there need to be champions of environmental sustainability efforts. Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to fill that role.

My concern is that 12 years is right around the corner. We are at an inflection point on our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and that is good, but time has become our enemy. The difference between terrible and unlivable will be our, and the world’s, response to reducing carbon emissions.

It is time for bold action from us, the health care community. It is our moment and our place to lead those efforts, so let’s take advantage of both this challenge and this opportunity. Consider leading those efforts in your health care system.

Dr. Conrad is medical director of community affairs and health policy at Ochsner Health Systems in New Orleans.

References

1. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Incheon [Republic of Korea]: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 7 Oct 2018.

2. Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PLoS ONE. 11(6):e0157014.

3. McCunn LJ, Gifford R. Do green offices affect employee engagement and environmental attitudes? Archit Sci Rev. 55:2;128-34. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2012.667939.
 

I have always enjoyed talking with my patients from coastal Louisiana. They enjoy life, embrace their environment, and give me a perspective which is both similar and different than that of residents of New Orleans where I practice hospital medicine.

Bernhard_Staehli/Thinkstock

Their hospitalization is often a reflective moment in their lives. Lately I have been asking them about their advice to their children concerning the future of southern Louisiana in reference to sea rise, global warming, and increasing climatic events. More often than not, they have been telling their children it is time to move away.

These are a people who have strong devotion to family, but they are also practical. More than anything they would like their children to stay and preserve their heritage, but concern for their children’s future outweighs that. They have not come to this conclusion by scientific reports, but rather by what is happening before them. This group of people doesn’t alarm easily, but they see the unrelenting evidence of land loss and sea rise before them with little reason to believe it will change.

I am normally not one to speak out about climate change. Like most I have listened to the continuous alarms sounded by experts but have always assumed someone more qualified than myself should lead the efforts. But when I see the tangible effects of climate change both in my own life and the lives of my patients, I feel a sense of urgency.

12 years

Twelve years. That is the time we have to significantly reduce carbon emissions before catastrophic and potentially irreversible events will occur. This evidence is according to the authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in October 2018. The report states urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to limit temperature elevations of 1.5°C and 2°C, as compared with the preindustrial era. Exceeding a 2°C elevation will likely lead to global adverse events at an unprecedented level.¹

The events forecast by the U.N. report are not abstract, particularly as they relate to public health. With high confidence, the report outlines with high specificity: increases in extreme heat, floods, crop failures, and a multitude of economic and social stressors which will affect the care of our most vulnerable patients.¹

This statement by Dr. Dana Hanson, president of the World Medical Association, summarizes the effects of climate change on the delivery of health care: “Climate change represents an inevitable massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major pandemics as a leading cause of death in the 21st century.”

So, what does the health care system have to do with climate change and its primary driver, carbon emissions? More than I realized, as the U.S. health care industry produces 10% of the nation’s carbon emissions.² If the U.S. health care system was a country it would be ranked seventh, ahead of the United Kingdom; 10% of all smog and 9% of all particulate-related respiratory disease can be attributed to the carbon emissions of the health care industry. This breaks down to possibly 20,000 premature deaths per year.² Our current health care industry is a significant driver of environmentally related disease and will continue to be so, unless major change occurs.

Although much of it is behind the scenes, providing health care 24/7 is a highly energy-intensive and waste-producing endeavor. Many of the innovations to reduce carbon emissions that have been seen in other industries have lagged behind in health care, as we have focused on other issues.

But the health care system is transitioning. It strives to address the whole person, including where they live, work, and play. A key component of this will be addressing our impact on the environments we serve. How can we make that argument if we don’t first address our own impact on the climate?

Carbon-neutral health care

Health care is one of the few industries that has the economic clout, the scientific basis, the community engagement, and perhaps most importantly the motivations to “first, do no harm” that could lead a national (if not a global) transformation in environmental stewardship among all industries.

Many agree that action is needed, but is essential that we set specific meaningful goals that take into account the urgency of the situation. One possible solution is to encourage every health care system to begin the process of becoming carbon neutral. Simply defined, carbon neutrality is balancing the activities that result in carbon emissions with activities that reduce carbon emissions. Carbon neutrality has become the standard by which an industry’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions is measured. The measurement is standardized and achievable, and the basic concept is understood by most. It results not only in long-term benefits to climate change, but immediate improvement of air quality in the local community. In addition, achieving carbon neutrality serves as a catalyst of new desired industries, improves employee morale, and aids in recruitment.³

So, what would a carbon-neutral health care system look like? In short, sustainability should be considered in all of its actions. Risks and benefits would be contemplated, as we do with all treatments, except now environmental risks would be brought into the equation. This includes the obvious, such as purchasing and supporting the development of renewable energy, but also transportation of patients and employees, food supply chains, and even the use of virtual visits to reduce the environmental impact of patient transportation.

I am optimistic that carbon neutrality is achievable in the health care sector. It can drive economic development and engage the community in environmental stewardship efforts. But time is of the essence and leaders for these efforts are needed now. As hospitalists, we are on the front lines of the health care system. We see the direct impact of social, economic, and environmental issues on our patients. We have credibility with both our patients and hospital administration. Among all industries, there need to be champions of environmental sustainability efforts. Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to fill that role.

My concern is that 12 years is right around the corner. We are at an inflection point on our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and that is good, but time has become our enemy. The difference between terrible and unlivable will be our, and the world’s, response to reducing carbon emissions.

It is time for bold action from us, the health care community. It is our moment and our place to lead those efforts, so let’s take advantage of both this challenge and this opportunity. Consider leading those efforts in your health care system.

Dr. Conrad is medical director of community affairs and health policy at Ochsner Health Systems in New Orleans.

References

1. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Incheon [Republic of Korea]: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 7 Oct 2018.

2. Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PLoS ONE. 11(6):e0157014.

3. McCunn LJ, Gifford R. Do green offices affect employee engagement and environmental attitudes? Archit Sci Rev. 55:2;128-34. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2012.667939.
 

I have always enjoyed talking with my patients from coastal Louisiana. They enjoy life, embrace their environment, and give me a perspective which is both similar and different than that of residents of New Orleans where I practice hospital medicine.

Bernhard_Staehli/Thinkstock

Their hospitalization is often a reflective moment in their lives. Lately I have been asking them about their advice to their children concerning the future of southern Louisiana in reference to sea rise, global warming, and increasing climatic events. More often than not, they have been telling their children it is time to move away.

These are a people who have strong devotion to family, but they are also practical. More than anything they would like their children to stay and preserve their heritage, but concern for their children’s future outweighs that. They have not come to this conclusion by scientific reports, but rather by what is happening before them. This group of people doesn’t alarm easily, but they see the unrelenting evidence of land loss and sea rise before them with little reason to believe it will change.

I am normally not one to speak out about climate change. Like most I have listened to the continuous alarms sounded by experts but have always assumed someone more qualified than myself should lead the efforts. But when I see the tangible effects of climate change both in my own life and the lives of my patients, I feel a sense of urgency.

12 years

Twelve years. That is the time we have to significantly reduce carbon emissions before catastrophic and potentially irreversible events will occur. This evidence is according to the authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in October 2018. The report states urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to limit temperature elevations of 1.5°C and 2°C, as compared with the preindustrial era. Exceeding a 2°C elevation will likely lead to global adverse events at an unprecedented level.¹

The events forecast by the U.N. report are not abstract, particularly as they relate to public health. With high confidence, the report outlines with high specificity: increases in extreme heat, floods, crop failures, and a multitude of economic and social stressors which will affect the care of our most vulnerable patients.¹

This statement by Dr. Dana Hanson, president of the World Medical Association, summarizes the effects of climate change on the delivery of health care: “Climate change represents an inevitable massive threat to global health that will likely eclipse the major pandemics as a leading cause of death in the 21st century.”

So, what does the health care system have to do with climate change and its primary driver, carbon emissions? More than I realized, as the U.S. health care industry produces 10% of the nation’s carbon emissions.² If the U.S. health care system was a country it would be ranked seventh, ahead of the United Kingdom; 10% of all smog and 9% of all particulate-related respiratory disease can be attributed to the carbon emissions of the health care industry. This breaks down to possibly 20,000 premature deaths per year.² Our current health care industry is a significant driver of environmentally related disease and will continue to be so, unless major change occurs.

Although much of it is behind the scenes, providing health care 24/7 is a highly energy-intensive and waste-producing endeavor. Many of the innovations to reduce carbon emissions that have been seen in other industries have lagged behind in health care, as we have focused on other issues.

But the health care system is transitioning. It strives to address the whole person, including where they live, work, and play. A key component of this will be addressing our impact on the environments we serve. How can we make that argument if we don’t first address our own impact on the climate?

Carbon-neutral health care

Health care is one of the few industries that has the economic clout, the scientific basis, the community engagement, and perhaps most importantly the motivations to “first, do no harm” that could lead a national (if not a global) transformation in environmental stewardship among all industries.

Many agree that action is needed, but is essential that we set specific meaningful goals that take into account the urgency of the situation. One possible solution is to encourage every health care system to begin the process of becoming carbon neutral. Simply defined, carbon neutrality is balancing the activities that result in carbon emissions with activities that reduce carbon emissions. Carbon neutrality has become the standard by which an industry’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions is measured. The measurement is standardized and achievable, and the basic concept is understood by most. It results not only in long-term benefits to climate change, but immediate improvement of air quality in the local community. In addition, achieving carbon neutrality serves as a catalyst of new desired industries, improves employee morale, and aids in recruitment.³

So, what would a carbon-neutral health care system look like? In short, sustainability should be considered in all of its actions. Risks and benefits would be contemplated, as we do with all treatments, except now environmental risks would be brought into the equation. This includes the obvious, such as purchasing and supporting the development of renewable energy, but also transportation of patients and employees, food supply chains, and even the use of virtual visits to reduce the environmental impact of patient transportation.

I am optimistic that carbon neutrality is achievable in the health care sector. It can drive economic development and engage the community in environmental stewardship efforts. But time is of the essence and leaders for these efforts are needed now. As hospitalists, we are on the front lines of the health care system. We see the direct impact of social, economic, and environmental issues on our patients. We have credibility with both our patients and hospital administration. Among all industries, there need to be champions of environmental sustainability efforts. Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to fill that role.

My concern is that 12 years is right around the corner. We are at an inflection point on our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and that is good, but time has become our enemy. The difference between terrible and unlivable will be our, and the world’s, response to reducing carbon emissions.

It is time for bold action from us, the health care community. It is our moment and our place to lead those efforts, so let’s take advantage of both this challenge and this opportunity. Consider leading those efforts in your health care system.

Dr. Conrad is medical director of community affairs and health policy at Ochsner Health Systems in New Orleans.

References

1. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. Incheon [Republic of Korea]: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 7 Oct 2018.

2. Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and Effects on Public Health. PLoS ONE. 11(6):e0157014.

3. McCunn LJ, Gifford R. Do green offices affect employee engagement and environmental attitudes? Archit Sci Rev. 55:2;128-34. doi: 10.1080/00038628.2012.667939.
 

A new point-of-care assay designed with machine learning offers improved accuracy for rapid identification of active tuberculosis (TB) infection, according to investigators.

Martynasfoto/ThinkStock

The blood-based triage test, which relies upon four host proteins and one TB antigen, is another step closer toward diagnostic accuracy standards proposed by the World Health Organization, reported lead author Rushdy Ahmad, PhD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. When fully developed, such a test could improve interventions for the most vulnerable patients, such as those with HIV, among whom TB often goes undiagnosed.

“Rapid and accurate diagnosis of active TB with current sputum-based diagnostic tools remains challenging in high-burden, resource-limited settings,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Science Translational Medicine.

They went on to explain the gap that currently exists between microscopy, which is operator dependent and insensitive, and newer technologies, such as nucleic acid amplification, which are more sensitive but heavily resource dependent. “Furthermore, two of the most vulnerable and highly affected groups – young children and adults with HIV infection – are unlikely to be diagnosed using sputum because of difficulty obtaining sputum and low bacillary loads in the sample.”

To look for a more practical option, the investigators drew blood from 406 patients with chronic cough. Then, using a bead-based immunoassay with machine learning, the investigators identified four blood proteins associated with active TB infection: interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, IL-18, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Blind validation of 317 samples from patients with chronic cough in Asia, Africa, and South America showed that the four biomarkers offered a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 65%. By adding a fifth biomarker, an antibody against TB antigen Ag85B, the investigators were able to raise accuracy figures to 86% sensitivity and 69% specificity.

Adding even more biomarkers could theoretically raise accuracy even further, according to the investigators. The WHO minimal performance thresholds are 90% sensitivity and 70% specificity, with optimal targets slightly higher, at 95% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Although these standards have not yet been met, the investigators plan on testing the existing assay in real-world scenarios while simultaneously aiming to make it better.

“A near-term goal is ... to incrementally improve the marker panel up to an anticipated 6- to 10-plex assay,” the investigators wrote. “However, given the urgency of the problem, the possibility of incremental improvements will not delay platform refinement and field testing.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the study. The investigators reported additional relationships with Quanterix Corporation and FIND.

SOURCE: Ahmad et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw8287.

A new point-of-care assay designed with machine learning offers improved accuracy for rapid identification of active tuberculosis (TB) infection, according to investigators.

Martynasfoto/ThinkStock

The blood-based triage test, which relies upon four host proteins and one TB antigen, is another step closer toward diagnostic accuracy standards proposed by the World Health Organization, reported lead author Rushdy Ahmad, PhD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. When fully developed, such a test could improve interventions for the most vulnerable patients, such as those with HIV, among whom TB often goes undiagnosed.

“Rapid and accurate diagnosis of active TB with current sputum-based diagnostic tools remains challenging in high-burden, resource-limited settings,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Science Translational Medicine.

They went on to explain the gap that currently exists between microscopy, which is operator dependent and insensitive, and newer technologies, such as nucleic acid amplification, which are more sensitive but heavily resource dependent. “Furthermore, two of the most vulnerable and highly affected groups – young children and adults with HIV infection – are unlikely to be diagnosed using sputum because of difficulty obtaining sputum and low bacillary loads in the sample.”

To look for a more practical option, the investigators drew blood from 406 patients with chronic cough. Then, using a bead-based immunoassay with machine learning, the investigators identified four blood proteins associated with active TB infection: interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, IL-18, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Blind validation of 317 samples from patients with chronic cough in Asia, Africa, and South America showed that the four biomarkers offered a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 65%. By adding a fifth biomarker, an antibody against TB antigen Ag85B, the investigators were able to raise accuracy figures to 86% sensitivity and 69% specificity.

Adding even more biomarkers could theoretically raise accuracy even further, according to the investigators. The WHO minimal performance thresholds are 90% sensitivity and 70% specificity, with optimal targets slightly higher, at 95% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Although these standards have not yet been met, the investigators plan on testing the existing assay in real-world scenarios while simultaneously aiming to make it better.

“A near-term goal is ... to incrementally improve the marker panel up to an anticipated 6- to 10-plex assay,” the investigators wrote. “However, given the urgency of the problem, the possibility of incremental improvements will not delay platform refinement and field testing.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the study. The investigators reported additional relationships with Quanterix Corporation and FIND.

SOURCE: Ahmad et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw8287.

A new point-of-care assay designed with machine learning offers improved accuracy for rapid identification of active tuberculosis (TB) infection, according to investigators.

Martynasfoto/ThinkStock

The blood-based triage test, which relies upon four host proteins and one TB antigen, is another step closer toward diagnostic accuracy standards proposed by the World Health Organization, reported lead author Rushdy Ahmad, PhD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues. When fully developed, such a test could improve interventions for the most vulnerable patients, such as those with HIV, among whom TB often goes undiagnosed.

“Rapid and accurate diagnosis of active TB with current sputum-based diagnostic tools remains challenging in high-burden, resource-limited settings,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Science Translational Medicine.

They went on to explain the gap that currently exists between microscopy, which is operator dependent and insensitive, and newer technologies, such as nucleic acid amplification, which are more sensitive but heavily resource dependent. “Furthermore, two of the most vulnerable and highly affected groups – young children and adults with HIV infection – are unlikely to be diagnosed using sputum because of difficulty obtaining sputum and low bacillary loads in the sample.”

To look for a more practical option, the investigators drew blood from 406 patients with chronic cough. Then, using a bead-based immunoassay with machine learning, the investigators identified four blood proteins associated with active TB infection: interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, IL-18, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Blind validation of 317 samples from patients with chronic cough in Asia, Africa, and South America showed that the four biomarkers offered a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 65%. By adding a fifth biomarker, an antibody against TB antigen Ag85B, the investigators were able to raise accuracy figures to 86% sensitivity and 69% specificity.

Adding even more biomarkers could theoretically raise accuracy even further, according to the investigators. The WHO minimal performance thresholds are 90% sensitivity and 70% specificity, with optimal targets slightly higher, at 95% sensitivity and 80% specificity. Although these standards have not yet been met, the investigators plan on testing the existing assay in real-world scenarios while simultaneously aiming to make it better.

“A near-term goal is ... to incrementally improve the marker panel up to an anticipated 6- to 10-plex assay,” the investigators wrote. “However, given the urgency of the problem, the possibility of incremental improvements will not delay platform refinement and field testing.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the study. The investigators reported additional relationships with Quanterix Corporation and FIND.

SOURCE: Ahmad et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw8287.

If you were a physician hospitalist in a group serving adults in 2017 you probably worked with nurse practitioners (NPs) and/or physician assistants (PAs). Seventy-seven percent of hospital medicine groups (HMGs) employed NPs and PAs that year.

In addition, the larger the group, the more likely the group was to have NPs and PAs as part of their practice model – 89% of hospital medicine groups with more than 30 physician had NPs and/or PAs as partners. In addition, the mean number of physicians for adult hospital medicine groups was 17.9. The same practices employed an average of 3.5 NPs, and 2.6 PAs.

Based on these numbers, there are just under three physicians per NP and PA in the typical HMG serving adults. This is all according to data from the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report that was published in 2019 by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

These observations lead to a number of questions. One thing that is not clear from the SoHM is why NPs and PAs are becoming a larger part of the hospital medicine workforce, but there are some insights and conjecture that can be drawn from the data. The first is economics. Over 6 years, the median incomes of NPs and PAs have risen a relatively modest 10%; over the same period physician hospitalists have seen a whopping 23.6% median pay increase.

Dr. Frederickson is medical director, hospital medicine and palliative care, at CHI Health, Omaha, Neb., and assistant professor at Creighton University, Omaha.

If you were a physician hospitalist in a group serving adults in 2017 you probably worked with nurse practitioners (NPs) and/or physician assistants (PAs). Seventy-seven percent of hospital medicine groups (HMGs) employed NPs and PAs that year.

In addition, the larger the group, the more likely the group was to have NPs and PAs as part of their practice model – 89% of hospital medicine groups with more than 30 physician had NPs and/or PAs as partners. In addition, the mean number of physicians for adult hospital medicine groups was 17.9. The same practices employed an average of 3.5 NPs, and 2.6 PAs.

Based on these numbers, there are just under three physicians per NP and PA in the typical HMG serving adults. This is all according to data from the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report that was published in 2019 by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

These observations lead to a number of questions. One thing that is not clear from the SoHM is why NPs and PAs are becoming a larger part of the hospital medicine workforce, but there are some insights and conjecture that can be drawn from the data. The first is economics. Over 6 years, the median incomes of NPs and PAs have risen a relatively modest 10%; over the same period physician hospitalists have seen a whopping 23.6% median pay increase.

Dr. Frederickson is medical director, hospital medicine and palliative care, at CHI Health, Omaha, Neb., and assistant professor at Creighton University, Omaha.

If you were a physician hospitalist in a group serving adults in 2017 you probably worked with nurse practitioners (NPs) and/or physician assistants (PAs). Seventy-seven percent of hospital medicine groups (HMGs) employed NPs and PAs that year.

In addition, the larger the group, the more likely the group was to have NPs and PAs as part of their practice model – 89% of hospital medicine groups with more than 30 physician had NPs and/or PAs as partners. In addition, the mean number of physicians for adult hospital medicine groups was 17.9. The same practices employed an average of 3.5 NPs, and 2.6 PAs.

Based on these numbers, there are just under three physicians per NP and PA in the typical HMG serving adults. This is all according to data from the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report that was published in 2019 by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

These observations lead to a number of questions. One thing that is not clear from the SoHM is why NPs and PAs are becoming a larger part of the hospital medicine workforce, but there are some insights and conjecture that can be drawn from the data. The first is economics. Over 6 years, the median incomes of NPs and PAs have risen a relatively modest 10%; over the same period physician hospitalists have seen a whopping 23.6% median pay increase.

Dr. Frederickson is medical director, hospital medicine and palliative care, at CHI Health, Omaha, Neb., and assistant professor at Creighton University, Omaha.

NEW ORLEANS – While further data are awaited on the role of vitamin C, thiamine, and steroids in sepsis, there is at least biologic plausibility for using the combination, and clinical equipoise that supports continued enrollment of patients in the ongoing randomized, controlled VICTAS trial, according to that study’s principal investigator.

“There is tremendous biologic plausibility for giving vitamin C in sepsis,” said Jon Sevransky, MD, professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta. But until more data are available on vitamin C–based regimens, those who choose to use vitamin C with thiamine and steroids in this setting need to ensure that glucose is being measured appropriately, he warned.

“If you decide that vitamin C is right for your patient, prior to having enough data – so if you’re doing a Hail Mary, or a ‘this patient is sick, and it’s probably not going to hurt them’ – please make sure that you measure your glucose with something that uses whole blood, which is either a blood gas or sending it down to the core lab, because otherwise, you might get an inaccurate result,” Dr. Sevransky said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Results from the randomized, placebo-controlled Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial may be available within the next few months, according to Dr. Sevransky, who noted that the trial was funded for 500 patients, which provides an 80% probability of showing an absolute risk reduction of 10% in mortality.

The primary endpoint of the phase 3 trial is vasopressor and ventilator-free days at 30 days after randomization, while 30-day mortality has been described as “the key secondary outcome” by Dr. Sevransky and colleagues in a recent report on the trial design.

Clinicians have been “captivated” by the potential benefit of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, as published in CHEST in June 2017, Dr. Sevransky said. In that study, reported by Paul E. Marik, MD, and colleagues, hospital mortality was 8.5% for the treatment group, versus 40.4% in the control group, a significant difference.

That retrospective, single-center study had a number of limitations, however, including its before-and-after design and the use of steroids in the comparator arm. In addition, little information was available on antibiotics or fluids given at the time of the intervention, according to Dr. Sevransky.

In results of the CITRIS-ALI randomized clinical trial, just published in JAMA, intravenous administration of high-dose vitamin C in patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to significantly reduce organ failure scores or biomarkers of inflammation and vascular injury.

In an exploratory analysis of CITRIS-ALI, mortality at day 28 was 29.8% for the treatment group and 46.3% for placebo, with a statistically significant difference between Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two arms, according to the investigators.

That exploratory result from CITRIS-ALI, however, is indicative of “something that needs further study,” Dr. Sevransky cautioned. “In summary, I hope I told you that biologic plausibility is present for vitamin C, thiamine, and steroids. I think that, and this is my own personal opinion, that evidence to date allows for randomization of patients, that there’s current equipoise.”

Dr. Sevransky disclosed current grant support from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Marcus Foundation, as well as a stipend from Critical Care Medicine related to work as an associate editor. He is also a medical advisor to Project Hope and ARDS Foundation and a member of the Surviving Sepsis guideline committees.

SOURCE: Sevransky J et al. Chest 2019.

NEW ORLEANS – While further data are awaited on the role of vitamin C, thiamine, and steroids in sepsis, there is at least biologic plausibility for using the combination, and clinical equipoise that supports continued enrollment of patients in the ongoing randomized, controlled VICTAS trial, according to that study’s principal investigator.

“There is tremendous biologic plausibility for giving vitamin C in sepsis,” said Jon Sevransky, MD, professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta. But until more data are available on vitamin C–based regimens, those who choose to use vitamin C with thiamine and steroids in this setting need to ensure that glucose is being measured appropriately, he warned.

“If you decide that vitamin C is right for your patient, prior to having enough data – so if you’re doing a Hail Mary, or a ‘this patient is sick, and it’s probably not going to hurt them’ – please make sure that you measure your glucose with something that uses whole blood, which is either a blood gas or sending it down to the core lab, because otherwise, you might get an inaccurate result,” Dr. Sevransky said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Results from the randomized, placebo-controlled Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial may be available within the next few months, according to Dr. Sevransky, who noted that the trial was funded for 500 patients, which provides an 80% probability of showing an absolute risk reduction of 10% in mortality.

The primary endpoint of the phase 3 trial is vasopressor and ventilator-free days at 30 days after randomization, while 30-day mortality has been described as “the key secondary outcome” by Dr. Sevransky and colleagues in a recent report on the trial design.

Clinicians have been “captivated” by the potential benefit of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, as published in CHEST in June 2017, Dr. Sevransky said. In that study, reported by Paul E. Marik, MD, and colleagues, hospital mortality was 8.5% for the treatment group, versus 40.4% in the control group, a significant difference.

That retrospective, single-center study had a number of limitations, however, including its before-and-after design and the use of steroids in the comparator arm. In addition, little information was available on antibiotics or fluids given at the time of the intervention, according to Dr. Sevransky.

In results of the CITRIS-ALI randomized clinical trial, just published in JAMA, intravenous administration of high-dose vitamin C in patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to significantly reduce organ failure scores or biomarkers of inflammation and vascular injury.

In an exploratory analysis of CITRIS-ALI, mortality at day 28 was 29.8% for the treatment group and 46.3% for placebo, with a statistically significant difference between Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two arms, according to the investigators.

That exploratory result from CITRIS-ALI, however, is indicative of “something that needs further study,” Dr. Sevransky cautioned. “In summary, I hope I told you that biologic plausibility is present for vitamin C, thiamine, and steroids. I think that, and this is my own personal opinion, that evidence to date allows for randomization of patients, that there’s current equipoise.”

Dr. Sevransky disclosed current grant support from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Marcus Foundation, as well as a stipend from Critical Care Medicine related to work as an associate editor. He is also a medical advisor to Project Hope and ARDS Foundation and a member of the Surviving Sepsis guideline committees.

SOURCE: Sevransky J et al. Chest 2019.

NEW ORLEANS – While further data are awaited on the role of vitamin C, thiamine, and steroids in sepsis, there is at least biologic plausibility for using the combination, and clinical equipoise that supports continued enrollment of patients in the ongoing randomized, controlled VICTAS trial, according to that study’s principal investigator.

“There is tremendous biologic plausibility for giving vitamin C in sepsis,” said Jon Sevransky, MD, professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta. But until more data are available on vitamin C–based regimens, those who choose to use vitamin C with thiamine and steroids in this setting need to ensure that glucose is being measured appropriately, he warned.

“If you decide that vitamin C is right for your patient, prior to having enough data – so if you’re doing a Hail Mary, or a ‘this patient is sick, and it’s probably not going to hurt them’ – please make sure that you measure your glucose with something that uses whole blood, which is either a blood gas or sending it down to the core lab, because otherwise, you might get an inaccurate result,” Dr. Sevransky said at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Results from the randomized, placebo-controlled Vitamin C, Thiamine, and Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) trial may be available within the next few months, according to Dr. Sevransky, who noted that the trial was funded for 500 patients, which provides an 80% probability of showing an absolute risk reduction of 10% in mortality.

The primary endpoint of the phase 3 trial is vasopressor and ventilator-free days at 30 days after randomization, while 30-day mortality has been described as “the key secondary outcome” by Dr. Sevransky and colleagues in a recent report on the trial design.

Clinicians have been “captivated” by the potential benefit of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, as published in CHEST in June 2017, Dr. Sevransky said. In that study, reported by Paul E. Marik, MD, and colleagues, hospital mortality was 8.5% for the treatment group, versus 40.4% in the control group, a significant difference.

That retrospective, single-center study had a number of limitations, however, including its before-and-after design and the use of steroids in the comparator arm. In addition, little information was available on antibiotics or fluids given at the time of the intervention, according to Dr. Sevransky.

In results of the CITRIS-ALI randomized clinical trial, just published in JAMA, intravenous administration of high-dose vitamin C in patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to significantly reduce organ failure scores or biomarkers of inflammation and vascular injury.

In an exploratory analysis of CITRIS-ALI, mortality at day 28 was 29.8% for the treatment group and 46.3% for placebo, with a statistically significant difference between Kaplan-Meier survival curves for the two arms, according to the investigators.

That exploratory result from CITRIS-ALI, however, is indicative of “something that needs further study,” Dr. Sevransky cautioned. “In summary, I hope I told you that biologic plausibility is present for vitamin C, thiamine, and steroids. I think that, and this is my own personal opinion, that evidence to date allows for randomization of patients, that there’s current equipoise.”

Dr. Sevransky disclosed current grant support from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the Marcus Foundation, as well as a stipend from Critical Care Medicine related to work as an associate editor. He is also a medical advisor to Project Hope and ARDS Foundation and a member of the Surviving Sepsis guideline committees.

SOURCE: Sevransky J et al. Chest 2019.