The Hospitalist

Influenza vaccination modestly reduces the risk of hospitalizations associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Cynthia Goldsmith/CDC photo #10073

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large, real-world population study to examine vaccine effectiveness in people with COPD using the test-negative design and influenza-specific study outcomes,” wrote Andrea S. Gershon, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto and colleagues. “These findings emphasize the need for more effective influenza vaccines for older COPD patients and other preventive strategies.”
 

A test-negative study design

Data suggest that 70% of COPD exacerbations are caused by infection, and influenza often is identified as the cause. Although all major COPD practice guidelines recommend seasonal influenza vaccination, the evidence indicating that vaccination reduces hospitalizations and death is limited. The inherent or corticosteroid-induced decrease in immune response to vaccination and respiratory infection among patients with COPD may reduce the effectiveness of influenza vaccination, wrote Dr. Gershon and colleagues.

The investigators used a test-negative design to evaluate how effectively influenza vaccination prevents laboratory-confirmed influenza–associated hospitalizations in community-dwelling older patients with COPD. They chose this design because it attenuates biases resulting from misclassification of infection and from differences in health care–seeking behavior between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Dr. Gershon and colleagues examined health care administrative data and respiratory specimens collected from patients who had been tested for influenza during the 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 influenza seasons. Eligible patients were aged 66 years or older, had physician-diagnosed COPD, and had been tested for influenza within 3 days before and during an acute care hospitalization. The researchers determined influenza vaccination status using physician and pharmacist billing claims. They obtained demographic information through linkage with the provincial health insurance database. Multivariable logistic regression allowed Dr. Gershon and colleagues to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of influenza vaccination in people with laboratory-confirmed influenza, compared with those without.
 

Effectiveness did not vary by demographic factors

The investigators included 21,748 patients in their analysis. Of this population, 3,636 (16.7%) patients tested positive for influenza. Vaccinated patients were less likely than unvaccinated patients to test positive for influenza (15.3% vs. 18.6%). Vaccinated patients also were more likely to be older; live in an urban area; live in a higher income neighborhood; have had more outpatient visits with a physician in the previous year; have received a prescription for a COPD medication in the previous 6 months; have diabetes, asthma, or immunocompromising conditions; have a longer duration of COPD; and have had an outpatient COPD exacerbation in the previous year.

The overall unadjusted estimate of vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza–associated hospitalizations was 21%. Multivariable adjustment yielded an effectiveness of 22%. When Dr. Gershon and colleagues corrected for misclassification of vaccination status among people with COPD, the effectiveness was estimated to be 43%. Vaccine effectiveness did not vary significantly according to influenza season, nor did it vary significantly by patient-specific factors such as age, sex, influenza subtype, codiagnosis of asthma, duration of COPD, previous outpatient COPD exacerbations, previous COPD hospitalization, previous receipt of inhaled corticosteroids, and previous pneumonia.

One limitation of the study was the possibility that COPD was misclassified because not all participants underwent pulmonary function testing. In addition, the estimates of vaccine effectiveness in the present study are specific to the outcome of influenza hospitalization and may not be generalizable to vaccine effectiveness estimates of outpatient outcomes, said the investigators. Finally, Dr. Gershon and colleagues could not identify the type of vaccine received.

“Given that a large pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating influenza vaccination would be unethical, this is likely the most robust estimate of vaccine effectiveness for hospitalizations in the COPD population to guide influenza vaccine recommendations for patients with COPD,” wrote Dr. Gershon and colleagues.

An Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Health Systems Research Fund Capacity Grant and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grant funded this research. One investigator received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the study, and others received grants from pharmaceutical companies that were unrelated to this study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gershon AS et al. J Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz419.

Influenza vaccination modestly reduces the risk of hospitalizations associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Cynthia Goldsmith/CDC photo #10073

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large, real-world population study to examine vaccine effectiveness in people with COPD using the test-negative design and influenza-specific study outcomes,” wrote Andrea S. Gershon, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto and colleagues. “These findings emphasize the need for more effective influenza vaccines for older COPD patients and other preventive strategies.”
 

A test-negative study design

Data suggest that 70% of COPD exacerbations are caused by infection, and influenza often is identified as the cause. Although all major COPD practice guidelines recommend seasonal influenza vaccination, the evidence indicating that vaccination reduces hospitalizations and death is limited. The inherent or corticosteroid-induced decrease in immune response to vaccination and respiratory infection among patients with COPD may reduce the effectiveness of influenza vaccination, wrote Dr. Gershon and colleagues.

The investigators used a test-negative design to evaluate how effectively influenza vaccination prevents laboratory-confirmed influenza–associated hospitalizations in community-dwelling older patients with COPD. They chose this design because it attenuates biases resulting from misclassification of infection and from differences in health care–seeking behavior between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Dr. Gershon and colleagues examined health care administrative data and respiratory specimens collected from patients who had been tested for influenza during the 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 influenza seasons. Eligible patients were aged 66 years or older, had physician-diagnosed COPD, and had been tested for influenza within 3 days before and during an acute care hospitalization. The researchers determined influenza vaccination status using physician and pharmacist billing claims. They obtained demographic information through linkage with the provincial health insurance database. Multivariable logistic regression allowed Dr. Gershon and colleagues to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of influenza vaccination in people with laboratory-confirmed influenza, compared with those without.
 

Effectiveness did not vary by demographic factors

The investigators included 21,748 patients in their analysis. Of this population, 3,636 (16.7%) patients tested positive for influenza. Vaccinated patients were less likely than unvaccinated patients to test positive for influenza (15.3% vs. 18.6%). Vaccinated patients also were more likely to be older; live in an urban area; live in a higher income neighborhood; have had more outpatient visits with a physician in the previous year; have received a prescription for a COPD medication in the previous 6 months; have diabetes, asthma, or immunocompromising conditions; have a longer duration of COPD; and have had an outpatient COPD exacerbation in the previous year.

The overall unadjusted estimate of vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza–associated hospitalizations was 21%. Multivariable adjustment yielded an effectiveness of 22%. When Dr. Gershon and colleagues corrected for misclassification of vaccination status among people with COPD, the effectiveness was estimated to be 43%. Vaccine effectiveness did not vary significantly according to influenza season, nor did it vary significantly by patient-specific factors such as age, sex, influenza subtype, codiagnosis of asthma, duration of COPD, previous outpatient COPD exacerbations, previous COPD hospitalization, previous receipt of inhaled corticosteroids, and previous pneumonia.

One limitation of the study was the possibility that COPD was misclassified because not all participants underwent pulmonary function testing. In addition, the estimates of vaccine effectiveness in the present study are specific to the outcome of influenza hospitalization and may not be generalizable to vaccine effectiveness estimates of outpatient outcomes, said the investigators. Finally, Dr. Gershon and colleagues could not identify the type of vaccine received.

“Given that a large pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating influenza vaccination would be unethical, this is likely the most robust estimate of vaccine effectiveness for hospitalizations in the COPD population to guide influenza vaccine recommendations for patients with COPD,” wrote Dr. Gershon and colleagues.

An Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Health Systems Research Fund Capacity Grant and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grant funded this research. One investigator received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the study, and others received grants from pharmaceutical companies that were unrelated to this study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gershon AS et al. J Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz419.

Influenza vaccination modestly reduces the risk of hospitalizations associated with laboratory-confirmed influenza in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), according to data published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.

Cynthia Goldsmith/CDC photo #10073

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large, real-world population study to examine vaccine effectiveness in people with COPD using the test-negative design and influenza-specific study outcomes,” wrote Andrea S. Gershon, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto and colleagues. “These findings emphasize the need for more effective influenza vaccines for older COPD patients and other preventive strategies.”
 

A test-negative study design

Data suggest that 70% of COPD exacerbations are caused by infection, and influenza often is identified as the cause. Although all major COPD practice guidelines recommend seasonal influenza vaccination, the evidence indicating that vaccination reduces hospitalizations and death is limited. The inherent or corticosteroid-induced decrease in immune response to vaccination and respiratory infection among patients with COPD may reduce the effectiveness of influenza vaccination, wrote Dr. Gershon and colleagues.

The investigators used a test-negative design to evaluate how effectively influenza vaccination prevents laboratory-confirmed influenza–associated hospitalizations in community-dwelling older patients with COPD. They chose this design because it attenuates biases resulting from misclassification of infection and from differences in health care–seeking behavior between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.

Dr. Gershon and colleagues examined health care administrative data and respiratory specimens collected from patients who had been tested for influenza during the 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 influenza seasons. Eligible patients were aged 66 years or older, had physician-diagnosed COPD, and had been tested for influenza within 3 days before and during an acute care hospitalization. The researchers determined influenza vaccination status using physician and pharmacist billing claims. They obtained demographic information through linkage with the provincial health insurance database. Multivariable logistic regression allowed Dr. Gershon and colleagues to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of influenza vaccination in people with laboratory-confirmed influenza, compared with those without.
 

Effectiveness did not vary by demographic factors

The investigators included 21,748 patients in their analysis. Of this population, 3,636 (16.7%) patients tested positive for influenza. Vaccinated patients were less likely than unvaccinated patients to test positive for influenza (15.3% vs. 18.6%). Vaccinated patients also were more likely to be older; live in an urban area; live in a higher income neighborhood; have had more outpatient visits with a physician in the previous year; have received a prescription for a COPD medication in the previous 6 months; have diabetes, asthma, or immunocompromising conditions; have a longer duration of COPD; and have had an outpatient COPD exacerbation in the previous year.

The overall unadjusted estimate of vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza–associated hospitalizations was 21%. Multivariable adjustment yielded an effectiveness of 22%. When Dr. Gershon and colleagues corrected for misclassification of vaccination status among people with COPD, the effectiveness was estimated to be 43%. Vaccine effectiveness did not vary significantly according to influenza season, nor did it vary significantly by patient-specific factors such as age, sex, influenza subtype, codiagnosis of asthma, duration of COPD, previous outpatient COPD exacerbations, previous COPD hospitalization, previous receipt of inhaled corticosteroids, and previous pneumonia.

One limitation of the study was the possibility that COPD was misclassified because not all participants underwent pulmonary function testing. In addition, the estimates of vaccine effectiveness in the present study are specific to the outcome of influenza hospitalization and may not be generalizable to vaccine effectiveness estimates of outpatient outcomes, said the investigators. Finally, Dr. Gershon and colleagues could not identify the type of vaccine received.

“Given that a large pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating influenza vaccination would be unethical, this is likely the most robust estimate of vaccine effectiveness for hospitalizations in the COPD population to guide influenza vaccine recommendations for patients with COPD,” wrote Dr. Gershon and colleagues.

An Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Health Systems Research Fund Capacity Grant and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grant funded this research. One investigator received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the study, and others received grants from pharmaceutical companies that were unrelated to this study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gershon AS et al. J Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz419.

Physician payment models that include productivity bonuses are widespread, says Reshma Gupta, MD, MSHPM.

“These payment models are thought to affect clinician behavior, with productivity bonuses incentivizing clinicians to do more. While new policies aim to reduce total costs of care, little is known about the association between physician payment models and the culture of delivering high-value care,” said Dr. Gupta, the medical director for quality improvement at UCLA Health in Los Angeles.

To find out if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals, internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Dr. Gupta and colleagues summarized the results.

The study found that nearly 30% of hospitalists who were sampled reported payment with productivity bonuses, while only 5% of hospitalists sampled reported quality or value-based bonuses, Dr. Gupta said. “Hospitalists who reported payment with productivity bonuses were more likely to report lower high-value care culture within their programs.”

Hospitalist leaders interested in improving high-value care culture can use the High Value Care Culture Survey (http://www.highvaluecareculturesurvey.com) to quickly assess the culture within their programs, diagnose areas of opportunity and target improvement efforts.

“They can test new physician payment models within their programs and evaluate their high-value care culture to identify areas of opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Gupta said.

Reference

1. Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;1;16-21.

Physician payment models that include productivity bonuses are widespread, says Reshma Gupta, MD, MSHPM.

“These payment models are thought to affect clinician behavior, with productivity bonuses incentivizing clinicians to do more. While new policies aim to reduce total costs of care, little is known about the association between physician payment models and the culture of delivering high-value care,” said Dr. Gupta, the medical director for quality improvement at UCLA Health in Los Angeles.

To find out if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals, internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Dr. Gupta and colleagues summarized the results.

The study found that nearly 30% of hospitalists who were sampled reported payment with productivity bonuses, while only 5% of hospitalists sampled reported quality or value-based bonuses, Dr. Gupta said. “Hospitalists who reported payment with productivity bonuses were more likely to report lower high-value care culture within their programs.”

Hospitalist leaders interested in improving high-value care culture can use the High Value Care Culture Survey (http://www.highvaluecareculturesurvey.com) to quickly assess the culture within their programs, diagnose areas of opportunity and target improvement efforts.

“They can test new physician payment models within their programs and evaluate their high-value care culture to identify areas of opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Gupta said.

Reference

1. Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;1;16-21.

Physician payment models that include productivity bonuses are widespread, says Reshma Gupta, MD, MSHPM.

“These payment models are thought to affect clinician behavior, with productivity bonuses incentivizing clinicians to do more. While new policies aim to reduce total costs of care, little is known about the association between physician payment models and the culture of delivering high-value care,” said Dr. Gupta, the medical director for quality improvement at UCLA Health in Los Angeles.

To find out if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals, internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Dr. Gupta and colleagues summarized the results.

The study found that nearly 30% of hospitalists who were sampled reported payment with productivity bonuses, while only 5% of hospitalists sampled reported quality or value-based bonuses, Dr. Gupta said. “Hospitalists who reported payment with productivity bonuses were more likely to report lower high-value care culture within their programs.”

Hospitalist leaders interested in improving high-value care culture can use the High Value Care Culture Survey (http://www.highvaluecareculturesurvey.com) to quickly assess the culture within their programs, diagnose areas of opportunity and target improvement efforts.

“They can test new physician payment models within their programs and evaluate their high-value care culture to identify areas of opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Gupta said.

Reference

1. Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;1;16-21.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are promoted as the solution to many health care problems, but the area risks becoming technology led – with only secondary consideration to the safe clinical application of the technology, says Robert Challen, PhD.

Dr. Challen, of the University of Exeter (England), is the lead author of a recent paper that examines the short-, medium-, and long-term issues with medical applications of AI. “In the short term, AI systems will effectively function like laboratory screening tests, identifying patients who are at higher risk than others of disease, or who could benefit more from a particular treatment,” Dr. Challen said. “We usually accept that laboratory tests are useful to help make a diagnosis; however, clinicians are aware that they might not always be accurate and interpret their output in the clinical context. AI systems are no different in that they will be a useful tool so long as they are designed with safety in mind and used with a pragmatic attitude to their interpretation.”

The paper also suggests a set of short-and medium-term clinical safety issues that need addressing when bringing these systems from laboratory to bedside.

In the longer term, as more continuously learning and autonomous systems are developed, the safety risks will need to be continuously reevaluated, he added. “Any new technology comes with limitations and understanding those limitations is key to safe use of that technology. In the same way a new screening test has limitations on its sensitivity and specificity that define how it can be used, AL and ML systems have limitations on accuracy and which patients they can be used on,” Dr. Challen said. If hospitalists understand these limitations, they can participate better in their development.

Dr. Challen recommends that hospitalists help the development of AI tools by participating in studies that assess AI applications in the clinical environment. “Try to make sure that where AI research is taking place, there is strong clinical involvement.”

Reference

1. Challen R et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 12. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are promoted as the solution to many health care problems, but the area risks becoming technology led – with only secondary consideration to the safe clinical application of the technology, says Robert Challen, PhD.

Dr. Challen, of the University of Exeter (England), is the lead author of a recent paper that examines the short-, medium-, and long-term issues with medical applications of AI. “In the short term, AI systems will effectively function like laboratory screening tests, identifying patients who are at higher risk than others of disease, or who could benefit more from a particular treatment,” Dr. Challen said. “We usually accept that laboratory tests are useful to help make a diagnosis; however, clinicians are aware that they might not always be accurate and interpret their output in the clinical context. AI systems are no different in that they will be a useful tool so long as they are designed with safety in mind and used with a pragmatic attitude to their interpretation.”

The paper also suggests a set of short-and medium-term clinical safety issues that need addressing when bringing these systems from laboratory to bedside.

In the longer term, as more continuously learning and autonomous systems are developed, the safety risks will need to be continuously reevaluated, he added. “Any new technology comes with limitations and understanding those limitations is key to safe use of that technology. In the same way a new screening test has limitations on its sensitivity and specificity that define how it can be used, AL and ML systems have limitations on accuracy and which patients they can be used on,” Dr. Challen said. If hospitalists understand these limitations, they can participate better in their development.

Dr. Challen recommends that hospitalists help the development of AI tools by participating in studies that assess AI applications in the clinical environment. “Try to make sure that where AI research is taking place, there is strong clinical involvement.”

Reference

1. Challen R et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 12. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are promoted as the solution to many health care problems, but the area risks becoming technology led – with only secondary consideration to the safe clinical application of the technology, says Robert Challen, PhD.

Dr. Challen, of the University of Exeter (England), is the lead author of a recent paper that examines the short-, medium-, and long-term issues with medical applications of AI. “In the short term, AI systems will effectively function like laboratory screening tests, identifying patients who are at higher risk than others of disease, or who could benefit more from a particular treatment,” Dr. Challen said. “We usually accept that laboratory tests are useful to help make a diagnosis; however, clinicians are aware that they might not always be accurate and interpret their output in the clinical context. AI systems are no different in that they will be a useful tool so long as they are designed with safety in mind and used with a pragmatic attitude to their interpretation.”

The paper also suggests a set of short-and medium-term clinical safety issues that need addressing when bringing these systems from laboratory to bedside.

In the longer term, as more continuously learning and autonomous systems are developed, the safety risks will need to be continuously reevaluated, he added. “Any new technology comes with limitations and understanding those limitations is key to safe use of that technology. In the same way a new screening test has limitations on its sensitivity and specificity that define how it can be used, AL and ML systems have limitations on accuracy and which patients they can be used on,” Dr. Challen said. If hospitalists understand these limitations, they can participate better in their development.

Dr. Challen recommends that hospitalists help the development of AI tools by participating in studies that assess AI applications in the clinical environment. “Try to make sure that where AI research is taking place, there is strong clinical involvement.”

Reference

1. Challen R et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 12. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370.

Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with lower quality of care, but the effect may be smaller than it seems, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 clinicians.

Previous studies have reported associations between burnout and lower quality of care, but a standardized approach to analyze bias in the studies is lacking, wrote Daniel S. Tawfik, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 123 publications from 1994 to 2019 with 142 study populations that included 241,553 health care providers.

Emotional exhaustion was the primary predictor for lower quality of care in 75 study populations, and overall burnout and depersonalization were the primary predictors for 56 and 11 study populations, respectively.

In an analysis of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 showed effects of burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 showed burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Approximately one-third (33%) of the burnout-quality combinations were reported at least three times. In a review of the 46 burnout-quality combinations with primary effect sizes, 24 showed a significant effect of burnout on poor quality of care, 1 showed a significant effect of burnout on high quality of care, and 21 showed no significant effect.

The researchers also tested study bias using the Ioannidis test and found “an excess of observed versus predicted statistically significant studies (73% observed vs. 62%).”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of many cross-sectional, observational studies that could not show causality, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest several implications for future research including the need to consider exaggerated effects and reduce bias.

“Although the effect sizes in the published literature are modestly strong, our finding of excess significance implies that the true magnitude may be smaller than reported, and the studies that attempted to lower the risk of bias demonstrate fewer significant associations than the full evidence base,” the researchers noted.

“Whether curtailing burnout improves quality of care, or whether improving quality of care reduces burnout, is not yet known, and adequately powered and designed randomized trials will be indispensable in answering these questions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Tawfik disclosed grants from Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute during the study period.

SOURCE: Tawfik DS et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.7326/M19-1152.

Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with lower quality of care, but the effect may be smaller than it seems, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 clinicians.

Previous studies have reported associations between burnout and lower quality of care, but a standardized approach to analyze bias in the studies is lacking, wrote Daniel S. Tawfik, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 123 publications from 1994 to 2019 with 142 study populations that included 241,553 health care providers.

Emotional exhaustion was the primary predictor for lower quality of care in 75 study populations, and overall burnout and depersonalization were the primary predictors for 56 and 11 study populations, respectively.

In an analysis of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 showed effects of burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 showed burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Approximately one-third (33%) of the burnout-quality combinations were reported at least three times. In a review of the 46 burnout-quality combinations with primary effect sizes, 24 showed a significant effect of burnout on poor quality of care, 1 showed a significant effect of burnout on high quality of care, and 21 showed no significant effect.

The researchers also tested study bias using the Ioannidis test and found “an excess of observed versus predicted statistically significant studies (73% observed vs. 62%).”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of many cross-sectional, observational studies that could not show causality, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest several implications for future research including the need to consider exaggerated effects and reduce bias.

“Although the effect sizes in the published literature are modestly strong, our finding of excess significance implies that the true magnitude may be smaller than reported, and the studies that attempted to lower the risk of bias demonstrate fewer significant associations than the full evidence base,” the researchers noted.

“Whether curtailing burnout improves quality of care, or whether improving quality of care reduces burnout, is not yet known, and adequately powered and designed randomized trials will be indispensable in answering these questions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Tawfik disclosed grants from Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute during the study period.

SOURCE: Tawfik DS et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.7326/M19-1152.

Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with lower quality of care, but the effect may be smaller than it seems, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 clinicians.

Previous studies have reported associations between burnout and lower quality of care, but a standardized approach to analyze bias in the studies is lacking, wrote Daniel S. Tawfik, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 123 publications from 1994 to 2019 with 142 study populations that included 241,553 health care providers.

Emotional exhaustion was the primary predictor for lower quality of care in 75 study populations, and overall burnout and depersonalization were the primary predictors for 56 and 11 study populations, respectively.

In an analysis of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 showed effects of burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 showed burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Approximately one-third (33%) of the burnout-quality combinations were reported at least three times. In a review of the 46 burnout-quality combinations with primary effect sizes, 24 showed a significant effect of burnout on poor quality of care, 1 showed a significant effect of burnout on high quality of care, and 21 showed no significant effect.

The researchers also tested study bias using the Ioannidis test and found “an excess of observed versus predicted statistically significant studies (73% observed vs. 62%).”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of many cross-sectional, observational studies that could not show causality, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest several implications for future research including the need to consider exaggerated effects and reduce bias.

“Although the effect sizes in the published literature are modestly strong, our finding of excess significance implies that the true magnitude may be smaller than reported, and the studies that attempted to lower the risk of bias demonstrate fewer significant associations than the full evidence base,” the researchers noted.

“Whether curtailing burnout improves quality of care, or whether improving quality of care reduces burnout, is not yet known, and adequately powered and designed randomized trials will be indispensable in answering these questions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Tawfik disclosed grants from Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute during the study period.

SOURCE: Tawfik DS et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.7326/M19-1152.

Hospitalization can be a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and their families. While challenges associated with the quality and safety of hospital care are well documented, perspectives of patients, families, caregivers, and other stakeholders are not as easily understood and are important targets of improvement research.

This led to the initiation of the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, a collaboration including the Society for Hospital Medicine’s Center for Quality Improvement. The team completed a systematic and broad engagement process with patients, families, and caregivers, followed by an in-person prioritization meeting to generate a priority list of research topics that describe the most important gaps in the care of hospitalized patients.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Luci Leykum, MD, MSc, MBA, SFHM, principal investigator for the i-HOPE Study, professor of medicine and investigator in the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and incoming associate chair for clinical innovation at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why is it so important to include the perspective of the patient during a hospital stay?

We cannot optimally improve outcomes of hospitalized patients if we don’t have patients’ perspectives on what needs to be improved. Hearing these perspectives also provides insights into how we can address gaps in hospital care.

How were patients and other stakeholders engaged during the i-HOPE program?

Patients, caregivers, and stakeholders were engaged throughout the entire project, from conceptualization to dissemination of results.

We worked with seven patient partners to develop the proposal that we submitted to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. They were involved in all phases of the project, from developing the informational webinars and surveys to analyzing our results.

We engaged additional patients, caregivers, and stakeholders to submit their highest priority unanswered research questions for improving hospital care. A total of 117 patients and 127 caregivers submitted questions. Our patient partners and more than 30 stakeholders were involved in prioritizing those research questions to develop our final agenda.

What is unique about the approach in the i-HOPE project, compared with other projects that may have had similar intended objectives?

Our project is unique in several respects. First, it was completely patient partnered. Having patients as equal members of the team changed our approach at every level – from how we communicated with patients and stakeholders to how we analyzed and presented our data. Second, we worked with a larger number of stakeholders representing a broad range of constituencies, from professional societies to health care delivery systems to payers.

How has SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement helped the i-HOPE program to realize its goals?

The Center for Quality Improvement helped considerably with the execution of the project. The researchers involved in i-HOPE were all members of the SHM Research Committee and were familiar with SHM’s capability as a partner in these larger-scale projects. The SHM Meetings team was instrumental in making our in-person patient and stakeholder prioritization meeting happen as well.

How can the findings of the i-HOPE program be applied?

We hope everyone can utilize our findings. Patients, families, and caregivers can use our results to improve their own care. Providers and delivery systems can target their improvement efforts using our findings to ensure that their work has the greatest impact on patients. Policy makers and funders can use our findings to direct work to the priority areas we identified. And finally, we hope the hospital research community uses our results to develop novel interventions to improve care.

For more information on the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, visit hospitalmedicine.org/ihope.

Hospitalization can be a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and their families. While challenges associated with the quality and safety of hospital care are well documented, perspectives of patients, families, caregivers, and other stakeholders are not as easily understood and are important targets of improvement research.

This led to the initiation of the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, a collaboration including the Society for Hospital Medicine’s Center for Quality Improvement. The team completed a systematic and broad engagement process with patients, families, and caregivers, followed by an in-person prioritization meeting to generate a priority list of research topics that describe the most important gaps in the care of hospitalized patients.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Luci Leykum, MD, MSc, MBA, SFHM, principal investigator for the i-HOPE Study, professor of medicine and investigator in the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and incoming associate chair for clinical innovation at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why is it so important to include the perspective of the patient during a hospital stay?

We cannot optimally improve outcomes of hospitalized patients if we don’t have patients’ perspectives on what needs to be improved. Hearing these perspectives also provides insights into how we can address gaps in hospital care.

How were patients and other stakeholders engaged during the i-HOPE program?

Patients, caregivers, and stakeholders were engaged throughout the entire project, from conceptualization to dissemination of results.

We worked with seven patient partners to develop the proposal that we submitted to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. They were involved in all phases of the project, from developing the informational webinars and surveys to analyzing our results.

We engaged additional patients, caregivers, and stakeholders to submit their highest priority unanswered research questions for improving hospital care. A total of 117 patients and 127 caregivers submitted questions. Our patient partners and more than 30 stakeholders were involved in prioritizing those research questions to develop our final agenda.

What is unique about the approach in the i-HOPE project, compared with other projects that may have had similar intended objectives?

Our project is unique in several respects. First, it was completely patient partnered. Having patients as equal members of the team changed our approach at every level – from how we communicated with patients and stakeholders to how we analyzed and presented our data. Second, we worked with a larger number of stakeholders representing a broad range of constituencies, from professional societies to health care delivery systems to payers.

How has SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement helped the i-HOPE program to realize its goals?

The Center for Quality Improvement helped considerably with the execution of the project. The researchers involved in i-HOPE were all members of the SHM Research Committee and were familiar with SHM’s capability as a partner in these larger-scale projects. The SHM Meetings team was instrumental in making our in-person patient and stakeholder prioritization meeting happen as well.

How can the findings of the i-HOPE program be applied?

We hope everyone can utilize our findings. Patients, families, and caregivers can use our results to improve their own care. Providers and delivery systems can target their improvement efforts using our findings to ensure that their work has the greatest impact on patients. Policy makers and funders can use our findings to direct work to the priority areas we identified. And finally, we hope the hospital research community uses our results to develop novel interventions to improve care.

For more information on the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, visit hospitalmedicine.org/ihope.

Hospitalization can be a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and their families. While challenges associated with the quality and safety of hospital care are well documented, perspectives of patients, families, caregivers, and other stakeholders are not as easily understood and are important targets of improvement research.

This led to the initiation of the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, a collaboration including the Society for Hospital Medicine’s Center for Quality Improvement. The team completed a systematic and broad engagement process with patients, families, and caregivers, followed by an in-person prioritization meeting to generate a priority list of research topics that describe the most important gaps in the care of hospitalized patients.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Luci Leykum, MD, MSc, MBA, SFHM, principal investigator for the i-HOPE Study, professor of medicine and investigator in the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and incoming associate chair for clinical innovation at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why is it so important to include the perspective of the patient during a hospital stay?

We cannot optimally improve outcomes of hospitalized patients if we don’t have patients’ perspectives on what needs to be improved. Hearing these perspectives also provides insights into how we can address gaps in hospital care.

How were patients and other stakeholders engaged during the i-HOPE program?

Patients, caregivers, and stakeholders were engaged throughout the entire project, from conceptualization to dissemination of results.

We worked with seven patient partners to develop the proposal that we submitted to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. They were involved in all phases of the project, from developing the informational webinars and surveys to analyzing our results.

We engaged additional patients, caregivers, and stakeholders to submit their highest priority unanswered research questions for improving hospital care. A total of 117 patients and 127 caregivers submitted questions. Our patient partners and more than 30 stakeholders were involved in prioritizing those research questions to develop our final agenda.

What is unique about the approach in the i-HOPE project, compared with other projects that may have had similar intended objectives?

Our project is unique in several respects. First, it was completely patient partnered. Having patients as equal members of the team changed our approach at every level – from how we communicated with patients and stakeholders to how we analyzed and presented our data. Second, we worked with a larger number of stakeholders representing a broad range of constituencies, from professional societies to health care delivery systems to payers.

How has SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement helped the i-HOPE program to realize its goals?

The Center for Quality Improvement helped considerably with the execution of the project. The researchers involved in i-HOPE were all members of the SHM Research Committee and were familiar with SHM’s capability as a partner in these larger-scale projects. The SHM Meetings team was instrumental in making our in-person patient and stakeholder prioritization meeting happen as well.

How can the findings of the i-HOPE program be applied?

We hope everyone can utilize our findings. Patients, families, and caregivers can use our results to improve their own care. Providers and delivery systems can target their improvement efforts using our findings to ensure that their work has the greatest impact on patients. Policy makers and funders can use our findings to direct work to the priority areas we identified. And finally, we hope the hospital research community uses our results to develop novel interventions to improve care.

For more information on the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, visit hospitalmedicine.org/ihope.

WASHINGTON – The top existential threats to health today are climate change and overpopulation, but third in this list is antimicrobial resistance, according to Helen Boucher, MD, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston. In her talk at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, however, she focused on the last, presenting the hottest developments in the clinical science of treating and identifying disease-causing agents.

In particular, she discussed two of the most important developments in the area of rapid diagnostics: cell-free microbial DNA in plasma and the use of next-generation gene sequencing for determining disease etiology.

Using a meta-genomics test, cell-free microbial DNA can be identified in plasma from more than 1,000 relevant bacteria, DNA viruses, fungi, and parasites. Though importantly, RNA viruses are not detectable using this technology, she added. Although current sampling is of plasma, this might expand to the ability to use urine in the future. She discussed its particular use in sepsis, as outlined in a paper in Nature Microbiology (2019;4[4]:663-74). The researchers examined 350 suspected sepsis patients and they found a 93% sensitivity, compared with reference standards, using this new test. The main issue with the test was a high incidence of false positives.

Another test Dr. Boucher discussed was the use of meta-genomic next-generation sequencing. She referred to a 2019 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discussed the use of clinical meta-genomic next-generation sequencing of cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis (2019;380[27]:2327-40). Next-generation sequencing identified 13% of patients positive who were missed using standard screening. However, a number of patients were not diagnosed using the new test, showing that this technique was an improvement over current methods, but not 100% successful.

Dr. Boucher stressed the need for “diagnostic stewardship” to identify the correct microbial agent causing disease, allowing for the use of appropriate treatment rather than shotgun approaches to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance. This practice requires collaboration between the clinical laboratory, pharmacists, and infectious disease specialists.

Dr. Boucher then switched to the area of therapeutics, focusing on the introduction of new antibiotics and other innovations in disease treatment methodologies, especially in the field of transplant ID.

“We have new drugs. That is the good news,” with the goals of the 10 x ’20 initiative to develop 10 new systemic antibiotics by 2020, having “been met and then some,” said Dr. Boucher.

“We now have 13 new drugs, systemically available antibiotics, available by August 2019,” she added, discussing several of the new drugs.

In addition, she pointed out several studies that have indicated that shorter courses of antibiotics are better than longer, and that, in many cases, oral therapy is better than intravenous.

In the burgeoning area of transplant ID studies, Dr. Boucher discussed new research showing that vaccinations in transplanted patients can be advised in several instances, though may require higher dosing, and how the use of hepatitis C virus–positive organs for transplant is showing good results and increasing the availability of organs for transplant.

Dr. Boucher has served on data review committees for Actelion and Medtronix and has served as a consultant/advisor for Cerexa, Durata Therapeutics, Merck (adjudication committee), Rib-X, and Wyeth/Pfizer (data safety monitoring committee).

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – The top existential threats to health today are climate change and overpopulation, but third in this list is antimicrobial resistance, according to Helen Boucher, MD, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston. In her talk at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, however, she focused on the last, presenting the hottest developments in the clinical science of treating and identifying disease-causing agents.

In particular, she discussed two of the most important developments in the area of rapid diagnostics: cell-free microbial DNA in plasma and the use of next-generation gene sequencing for determining disease etiology.

Using a meta-genomics test, cell-free microbial DNA can be identified in plasma from more than 1,000 relevant bacteria, DNA viruses, fungi, and parasites. Though importantly, RNA viruses are not detectable using this technology, she added. Although current sampling is of plasma, this might expand to the ability to use urine in the future. She discussed its particular use in sepsis, as outlined in a paper in Nature Microbiology (2019;4[4]:663-74). The researchers examined 350 suspected sepsis patients and they found a 93% sensitivity, compared with reference standards, using this new test. The main issue with the test was a high incidence of false positives.

Another test Dr. Boucher discussed was the use of meta-genomic next-generation sequencing. She referred to a 2019 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discussed the use of clinical meta-genomic next-generation sequencing of cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis (2019;380[27]:2327-40). Next-generation sequencing identified 13% of patients positive who were missed using standard screening. However, a number of patients were not diagnosed using the new test, showing that this technique was an improvement over current methods, but not 100% successful.

Dr. Boucher stressed the need for “diagnostic stewardship” to identify the correct microbial agent causing disease, allowing for the use of appropriate treatment rather than shotgun approaches to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance. This practice requires collaboration between the clinical laboratory, pharmacists, and infectious disease specialists.

Dr. Boucher then switched to the area of therapeutics, focusing on the introduction of new antibiotics and other innovations in disease treatment methodologies, especially in the field of transplant ID.

“We have new drugs. That is the good news,” with the goals of the 10 x ’20 initiative to develop 10 new systemic antibiotics by 2020, having “been met and then some,” said Dr. Boucher.

“We now have 13 new drugs, systemically available antibiotics, available by August 2019,” she added, discussing several of the new drugs.

In addition, she pointed out several studies that have indicated that shorter courses of antibiotics are better than longer, and that, in many cases, oral therapy is better than intravenous.

In the burgeoning area of transplant ID studies, Dr. Boucher discussed new research showing that vaccinations in transplanted patients can be advised in several instances, though may require higher dosing, and how the use of hepatitis C virus–positive organs for transplant is showing good results and increasing the availability of organs for transplant.

Dr. Boucher has served on data review committees for Actelion and Medtronix and has served as a consultant/advisor for Cerexa, Durata Therapeutics, Merck (adjudication committee), Rib-X, and Wyeth/Pfizer (data safety monitoring committee).

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – The top existential threats to health today are climate change and overpopulation, but third in this list is antimicrobial resistance, according to Helen Boucher, MD, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston. In her talk at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases, however, she focused on the last, presenting the hottest developments in the clinical science of treating and identifying disease-causing agents.

In particular, she discussed two of the most important developments in the area of rapid diagnostics: cell-free microbial DNA in plasma and the use of next-generation gene sequencing for determining disease etiology.

Using a meta-genomics test, cell-free microbial DNA can be identified in plasma from more than 1,000 relevant bacteria, DNA viruses, fungi, and parasites. Though importantly, RNA viruses are not detectable using this technology, she added. Although current sampling is of plasma, this might expand to the ability to use urine in the future. She discussed its particular use in sepsis, as outlined in a paper in Nature Microbiology (2019;4[4]:663-74). The researchers examined 350 suspected sepsis patients and they found a 93% sensitivity, compared with reference standards, using this new test. The main issue with the test was a high incidence of false positives.

Another test Dr. Boucher discussed was the use of meta-genomic next-generation sequencing. She referred to a 2019 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, which discussed the use of clinical meta-genomic next-generation sequencing of cerebrospinal fluid for the diagnosis of meningitis and encephalitis (2019;380[27]:2327-40). Next-generation sequencing identified 13% of patients positive who were missed using standard screening. However, a number of patients were not diagnosed using the new test, showing that this technique was an improvement over current methods, but not 100% successful.

Dr. Boucher stressed the need for “diagnostic stewardship” to identify the correct microbial agent causing disease, allowing for the use of appropriate treatment rather than shotgun approaches to prevent the development of antibiotic resistance. This practice requires collaboration between the clinical laboratory, pharmacists, and infectious disease specialists.

Dr. Boucher then switched to the area of therapeutics, focusing on the introduction of new antibiotics and other innovations in disease treatment methodologies, especially in the field of transplant ID.

“We have new drugs. That is the good news,” with the goals of the 10 x ’20 initiative to develop 10 new systemic antibiotics by 2020, having “been met and then some,” said Dr. Boucher.

“We now have 13 new drugs, systemically available antibiotics, available by August 2019,” she added, discussing several of the new drugs.

In addition, she pointed out several studies that have indicated that shorter courses of antibiotics are better than longer, and that, in many cases, oral therapy is better than intravenous.

In the burgeoning area of transplant ID studies, Dr. Boucher discussed new research showing that vaccinations in transplanted patients can be advised in several instances, though may require higher dosing, and how the use of hepatitis C virus–positive organs for transplant is showing good results and increasing the availability of organs for transplant.

Dr. Boucher has served on data review committees for Actelion and Medtronix and has served as a consultant/advisor for Cerexa, Durata Therapeutics, Merck (adjudication committee), Rib-X, and Wyeth/Pfizer (data safety monitoring committee).

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Patients hospitalized for pyelonephritis and discharged after receiving intravenous antibiotic treatment who then received step-down treatment with an oral beta-lactam had 30-day outcomes that were noninferior to patients who received an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as their discharge regimen, in a retrospective study of 211 patients managed at either of two U.S. hospitals.

This was the largest comparison reported on oral beta-lactam drugs for postdischarge treatment of pyelonephritis relative to the standard oral agents, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim), Athena Hobbs, PharmD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases. The superiority of an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and inferiority of oral beta-lactam drugs were cited in 2010 guidelines for managing pyelonephritis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 March 1;52 [5]: e103-20).

Although limited as a nonrandomized, retrospective comparison, the finding of at least similar efficacy by beta-lactam agents “opens new treatment options” that avoid issues with drug resistance and adverse effects from treatment with fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Dr. Hobbs said in a video interview. Beta-lactams have already been embraced for this indication by some hospitalists, demonstrated by their use of beta-lactam antibiotics for 122 (58%) of the 211 patients included in the study. Among the 89 patients discharged on a non–beta-lactam, 69 (78%) had fluoroquinolone treatment and the remaining 20 patients went home taking trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The new finding “confirms that we are not doing harm to patients,” with this existing practice of mostly prescribing an oral beta-lactam drug, noted Dr. Hobbs, an infectious diseases pharmacy specialist at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis.

The study included patients aged 18-89 years hospitalized during 2014-2017 for a primary diagnosis of pyelonephritis at Baptist or at a second Hospital in Austin, Tex. The study excluded patients in intensive care, with a urologic abnormality, pregnant women, and patients treated with an intravenous antibiotic other than a beta-lactam for more than 24 hours. The most commonly used intravenous drugs were cefazolin and ceftriaxone. The enrolled patients averaged just over 40 years old, and more than 90% were women.

The study’s primary outcome was the 30-day rate of either hospital readmission or an ED visit for pyelonephritis or a urinary tract infection. This occurred in 4.9% of the patients discharged on an oral course of a beta-lactam drug, and in 5.6% of those discharged on either a fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, Dr. Hobbs reported. The most commonly prescribed oral beta-lactam was cefuroxime in about half the patients, followed by cephalexin or cefadroxil in about a quarter of patients, and amoxicillin with clavulanate in 19%. The two arms of the study also showed no significant difference in infection recurrences during 90-day follow-up.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hobbs had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Patients hospitalized for pyelonephritis and discharged after receiving intravenous antibiotic treatment who then received step-down treatment with an oral beta-lactam had 30-day outcomes that were noninferior to patients who received an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as their discharge regimen, in a retrospective study of 211 patients managed at either of two U.S. hospitals.

This was the largest comparison reported on oral beta-lactam drugs for postdischarge treatment of pyelonephritis relative to the standard oral agents, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim), Athena Hobbs, PharmD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases. The superiority of an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and inferiority of oral beta-lactam drugs were cited in 2010 guidelines for managing pyelonephritis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 March 1;52 [5]: e103-20).

Although limited as a nonrandomized, retrospective comparison, the finding of at least similar efficacy by beta-lactam agents “opens new treatment options” that avoid issues with drug resistance and adverse effects from treatment with fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Dr. Hobbs said in a video interview. Beta-lactams have already been embraced for this indication by some hospitalists, demonstrated by their use of beta-lactam antibiotics for 122 (58%) of the 211 patients included in the study. Among the 89 patients discharged on a non–beta-lactam, 69 (78%) had fluoroquinolone treatment and the remaining 20 patients went home taking trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The new finding “confirms that we are not doing harm to patients,” with this existing practice of mostly prescribing an oral beta-lactam drug, noted Dr. Hobbs, an infectious diseases pharmacy specialist at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis.

The study included patients aged 18-89 years hospitalized during 2014-2017 for a primary diagnosis of pyelonephritis at Baptist or at a second Hospital in Austin, Tex. The study excluded patients in intensive care, with a urologic abnormality, pregnant women, and patients treated with an intravenous antibiotic other than a beta-lactam for more than 24 hours. The most commonly used intravenous drugs were cefazolin and ceftriaxone. The enrolled patients averaged just over 40 years old, and more than 90% were women.

The study’s primary outcome was the 30-day rate of either hospital readmission or an ED visit for pyelonephritis or a urinary tract infection. This occurred in 4.9% of the patients discharged on an oral course of a beta-lactam drug, and in 5.6% of those discharged on either a fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, Dr. Hobbs reported. The most commonly prescribed oral beta-lactam was cefuroxime in about half the patients, followed by cephalexin or cefadroxil in about a quarter of patients, and amoxicillin with clavulanate in 19%. The two arms of the study also showed no significant difference in infection recurrences during 90-day follow-up.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hobbs had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – Patients hospitalized for pyelonephritis and discharged after receiving intravenous antibiotic treatment who then received step-down treatment with an oral beta-lactam had 30-day outcomes that were noninferior to patients who received an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as their discharge regimen, in a retrospective study of 211 patients managed at either of two U.S. hospitals.

This was the largest comparison reported on oral beta-lactam drugs for postdischarge treatment of pyelonephritis relative to the standard oral agents, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim), Athena Hobbs, PharmD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases. The superiority of an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and inferiority of oral beta-lactam drugs were cited in 2010 guidelines for managing pyelonephritis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 March 1;52 [5]: e103-20).

Although limited as a nonrandomized, retrospective comparison, the finding of at least similar efficacy by beta-lactam agents “opens new treatment options” that avoid issues with drug resistance and adverse effects from treatment with fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Dr. Hobbs said in a video interview. Beta-lactams have already been embraced for this indication by some hospitalists, demonstrated by their use of beta-lactam antibiotics for 122 (58%) of the 211 patients included in the study. Among the 89 patients discharged on a non–beta-lactam, 69 (78%) had fluoroquinolone treatment and the remaining 20 patients went home taking trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The new finding “confirms that we are not doing harm to patients,” with this existing practice of mostly prescribing an oral beta-lactam drug, noted Dr. Hobbs, an infectious diseases pharmacy specialist at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis.

The study included patients aged 18-89 years hospitalized during 2014-2017 for a primary diagnosis of pyelonephritis at Baptist or at a second Hospital in Austin, Tex. The study excluded patients in intensive care, with a urologic abnormality, pregnant women, and patients treated with an intravenous antibiotic other than a beta-lactam for more than 24 hours. The most commonly used intravenous drugs were cefazolin and ceftriaxone. The enrolled patients averaged just over 40 years old, and more than 90% were women.

The study’s primary outcome was the 30-day rate of either hospital readmission or an ED visit for pyelonephritis or a urinary tract infection. This occurred in 4.9% of the patients discharged on an oral course of a beta-lactam drug, and in 5.6% of those discharged on either a fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, Dr. Hobbs reported. The most commonly prescribed oral beta-lactam was cefuroxime in about half the patients, followed by cephalexin or cefadroxil in about a quarter of patients, and amoxicillin with clavulanate in 19%. The two arms of the study also showed no significant difference in infection recurrences during 90-day follow-up.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hobbs had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”

In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.

The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.

Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.

“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.

The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).

Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.

CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”

In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.

The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.

Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.

“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.

The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).

Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.

CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”

In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.

The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.

Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.

“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.

The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).

Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.

Vaping-associated lung injury is likely a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis, not exogenous lipoid pneumonia, according to Yasmeen M. Butt, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and associates.

VlaDee/Getty Images

Dr. Butt and associates performed a review of lung biopsies from 17 patients (13 men; median age, 35 years) with a history of vaping and either suspected or confirmed vaping-associated lung injury. All cases showed patterns of acute lung injury, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, or organizing pneumonia, the authors noted in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

While no histologic findings were specific, foamy macrophages and pneumocyte vacuolization were seen in all cases, the authors added. Pigmented macrophages were occasionally present but not dominant, neutrophils were often prominent, eosinophils were rare, and granulomas were not seen. Two patients eventually died, despite treatment with glucocorticoids and maximum supportive care.

“None of our cases showed histologic evidence of exogenous lipoid pneumonia and no radiologic evidence thereof has been found; this calls into question the diagnostic utility of identifying lipid-laden macrophages or performing oil red O staining on bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of vaping-associated lung injury, as has been proposed,” Dr. Butt and associates wrote.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Butt YM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1913069.

Vaping-associated lung injury is likely a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis, not exogenous lipoid pneumonia, according to Yasmeen M. Butt, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and associates.

VlaDee/Getty Images

Dr. Butt and associates performed a review of lung biopsies from 17 patients (13 men; median age, 35 years) with a history of vaping and either suspected or confirmed vaping-associated lung injury. All cases showed patterns of acute lung injury, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, or organizing pneumonia, the authors noted in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

While no histologic findings were specific, foamy macrophages and pneumocyte vacuolization were seen in all cases, the authors added. Pigmented macrophages were occasionally present but not dominant, neutrophils were often prominent, eosinophils were rare, and granulomas were not seen. Two patients eventually died, despite treatment with glucocorticoids and maximum supportive care.

“None of our cases showed histologic evidence of exogenous lipoid pneumonia and no radiologic evidence thereof has been found; this calls into question the diagnostic utility of identifying lipid-laden macrophages or performing oil red O staining on bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of vaping-associated lung injury, as has been proposed,” Dr. Butt and associates wrote.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Butt YM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1913069.

Vaping-associated lung injury is likely a form of airway-centered chemical pneumonitis, not exogenous lipoid pneumonia, according to Yasmeen M. Butt, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and associates.

VlaDee/Getty Images

Dr. Butt and associates performed a review of lung biopsies from 17 patients (13 men; median age, 35 years) with a history of vaping and either suspected or confirmed vaping-associated lung injury. All cases showed patterns of acute lung injury, including acute fibrinous pneumonitis, diffuse alveolar damage, or organizing pneumonia, the authors noted in a letter to the editor published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

While no histologic findings were specific, foamy macrophages and pneumocyte vacuolization were seen in all cases, the authors added. Pigmented macrophages were occasionally present but not dominant, neutrophils were often prominent, eosinophils were rare, and granulomas were not seen. Two patients eventually died, despite treatment with glucocorticoids and maximum supportive care.

“None of our cases showed histologic evidence of exogenous lipoid pneumonia and no radiologic evidence thereof has been found; this calls into question the diagnostic utility of identifying lipid-laden macrophages or performing oil red O staining on bronchioloalveolar lavage fluid as a marker of vaping-associated lung injury, as has been proposed,” Dr. Butt and associates wrote.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Butt YM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1913069.

A total of 1,249 measles cases were reported in the United States during Jan. 1–Oct.1, 2019, making it the most active year for the disease since 1992, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

While 22 outbreaks were reported in 17 states during 2019, the majority of measles cases occurred in a pair of outbreaks that started in late 2018, one in New York City and the other in New York state. Theses two outbreaks, which occurred in underimmunized, close-knit communities, accounted for 934 (75%) of the 2019 total. An additional six outbreaks in similar communities accounted for nearly half of the remaining reported cases.

The overall median patient age was 6 years, with 31% being children aged 1-4 years, 27% being school-age children aged 5-17 years, and 29% were adults aged at least 18 years. However, when excluding the New York City (NYC) and New York state outbreaks, the median patient age was 19 years. Outbreak length also differed significantly between the NYC and New York state outbreaks, compared with all other outbreaks; the NYC outbreak lasted for 9.5 months, involving 702 patients from start to finish, the New York state outbreak lasted for 10.5 months and involved 412 cases.

The rate of patients who were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status was similar in the New York outbreaks and in the other U.S. outbreaks, ranging from 87% to 91%. A total of 119 patients were hospitalized, 20% of whom were younger than 1 year; no deaths were reported. A total of 81 cases were internationally imported; the rate of patients who were unvaccinated or had unknown status in this group was 90%.

While most outbreaks in 2019 were similar to those previously seen, the outbreaks in NYC and New York state were more sustained for three reasons, the CDC investigators said: pockets of low vaccination coverage and variable vaccine acceptance, relatively high population density and closed social nature of the community, and repeated importations of measles cases among unvaccinated persons traveling internationally and returning to or visiting the affected communities.

“Public health authorities need to identify pockets of undervaccinated persons to prevent these outbreaks, which require substantial resources to control. A preventive strategy to build vaccine confidence is important, especially one that uses culturally appropriate communication strategies to offset misinformation and disseminate accurate information about the safety and importance of vaccination in advance of outbreaks,” the CDC investigators concluded.

The CDC investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel M et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840e2.

A total of 1,249 measles cases were reported in the United States during Jan. 1–Oct.1, 2019, making it the most active year for the disease since 1992, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

While 22 outbreaks were reported in 17 states during 2019, the majority of measles cases occurred in a pair of outbreaks that started in late 2018, one in New York City and the other in New York state. Theses two outbreaks, which occurred in underimmunized, close-knit communities, accounted for 934 (75%) of the 2019 total. An additional six outbreaks in similar communities accounted for nearly half of the remaining reported cases.

The overall median patient age was 6 years, with 31% being children aged 1-4 years, 27% being school-age children aged 5-17 years, and 29% were adults aged at least 18 years. However, when excluding the New York City (NYC) and New York state outbreaks, the median patient age was 19 years. Outbreak length also differed significantly between the NYC and New York state outbreaks, compared with all other outbreaks; the NYC outbreak lasted for 9.5 months, involving 702 patients from start to finish, the New York state outbreak lasted for 10.5 months and involved 412 cases.

The rate of patients who were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status was similar in the New York outbreaks and in the other U.S. outbreaks, ranging from 87% to 91%. A total of 119 patients were hospitalized, 20% of whom were younger than 1 year; no deaths were reported. A total of 81 cases were internationally imported; the rate of patients who were unvaccinated or had unknown status in this group was 90%.

While most outbreaks in 2019 were similar to those previously seen, the outbreaks in NYC and New York state were more sustained for three reasons, the CDC investigators said: pockets of low vaccination coverage and variable vaccine acceptance, relatively high population density and closed social nature of the community, and repeated importations of measles cases among unvaccinated persons traveling internationally and returning to or visiting the affected communities.

“Public health authorities need to identify pockets of undervaccinated persons to prevent these outbreaks, which require substantial resources to control. A preventive strategy to build vaccine confidence is important, especially one that uses culturally appropriate communication strategies to offset misinformation and disseminate accurate information about the safety and importance of vaccination in advance of outbreaks,” the CDC investigators concluded.

The CDC investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel M et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840e2.

A total of 1,249 measles cases were reported in the United States during Jan. 1–Oct.1, 2019, making it the most active year for the disease since 1992, according to investigators from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC/ Cynthia S. Goldsmith; William Bellini, Ph.D.

While 22 outbreaks were reported in 17 states during 2019, the majority of measles cases occurred in a pair of outbreaks that started in late 2018, one in New York City and the other in New York state. Theses two outbreaks, which occurred in underimmunized, close-knit communities, accounted for 934 (75%) of the 2019 total. An additional six outbreaks in similar communities accounted for nearly half of the remaining reported cases.

The overall median patient age was 6 years, with 31% being children aged 1-4 years, 27% being school-age children aged 5-17 years, and 29% were adults aged at least 18 years. However, when excluding the New York City (NYC) and New York state outbreaks, the median patient age was 19 years. Outbreak length also differed significantly between the NYC and New York state outbreaks, compared with all other outbreaks; the NYC outbreak lasted for 9.5 months, involving 702 patients from start to finish, the New York state outbreak lasted for 10.5 months and involved 412 cases.

The rate of patients who were either unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status was similar in the New York outbreaks and in the other U.S. outbreaks, ranging from 87% to 91%. A total of 119 patients were hospitalized, 20% of whom were younger than 1 year; no deaths were reported. A total of 81 cases were internationally imported; the rate of patients who were unvaccinated or had unknown status in this group was 90%.

While most outbreaks in 2019 were similar to those previously seen, the outbreaks in NYC and New York state were more sustained for three reasons, the CDC investigators said: pockets of low vaccination coverage and variable vaccine acceptance, relatively high population density and closed social nature of the community, and repeated importations of measles cases among unvaccinated persons traveling internationally and returning to or visiting the affected communities.

“Public health authorities need to identify pockets of undervaccinated persons to prevent these outbreaks, which require substantial resources to control. A preventive strategy to build vaccine confidence is important, especially one that uses culturally appropriate communication strategies to offset misinformation and disseminate accurate information about the safety and importance of vaccination in advance of outbreaks,” the CDC investigators concluded.

The CDC investigators reported that they had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel M et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Oct 4. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6840e2.