The Hospitalist

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is proposing improvements to physician payments and an overhaul of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track of the Quality Payment Program.

In a separate proposal also released on July 29, the agency proposed that hospitals be required to make more pricing information publicly available.

The Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule for the 2020 annual update would require hospitals to not only publish their gross charges, but also the negotiated price by specific payer for select services that can be scheduled by a patient in advance.

The proposal states "that hospitals make public their standard changes (both gross charges and payer-specific negotiated charges) for all items and services online in a machine-readable format" which would allow them to be included in price transparency tools and electronic health records.

"Hospitals would be required to post all their payer-specific negotiated rates, which are the prices actually paid by insurers," CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a July 29 conference call with reporters.

As "deductibles rise and with 29 million uninsured, patients have the right to know the price of health care services so they can shop around for the best deal," she said.

The rule also comes with new enforcement tools so that CMS can ensure hospitals are complying with the rule, should it be finalized.

Hospitals would need to start publishing list prices and payer-specific negotiated prices beginning Jan. 1, 2020.

In a separate proposal to update the physician fee schedule for 2020, CMS is looking to increase Medicare payments in 2021 for evaluation and management (E/M) visits based on recommendations from the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (AMA-RUC).

With this update, the agency will be "rewarding the time that doctors spend with patients," Administrator Verma said.

The fact sheet on the proposed update to the physician fee schedule also highlights improvements to case management payments, allowing physicians to get paid for case management services if the patient only has one high-risk condition.

"For 2021, we are overhauling the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, to reduce reporting burden, making sure the measures are relevant to clinicians as they move toward value-based care," she said, noting that clinicians would be reporting on fewer, more meaningful measures that are aligned to their specialty or practice area, "making it easier to participate in MIPS."

Look for in depth analysis of both proposals shortly on this website.
 
[email protected]  

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is proposing improvements to physician payments and an overhaul of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track of the Quality Payment Program.

In a separate proposal also released on July 29, the agency proposed that hospitals be required to make more pricing information publicly available.

The Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule for the 2020 annual update would require hospitals to not only publish their gross charges, but also the negotiated price by specific payer for select services that can be scheduled by a patient in advance.

The proposal states "that hospitals make public their standard changes (both gross charges and payer-specific negotiated charges) for all items and services online in a machine-readable format" which would allow them to be included in price transparency tools and electronic health records.

"Hospitals would be required to post all their payer-specific negotiated rates, which are the prices actually paid by insurers," CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a July 29 conference call with reporters.

As "deductibles rise and with 29 million uninsured, patients have the right to know the price of health care services so they can shop around for the best deal," she said.

The rule also comes with new enforcement tools so that CMS can ensure hospitals are complying with the rule, should it be finalized.

Hospitals would need to start publishing list prices and payer-specific negotiated prices beginning Jan. 1, 2020.

In a separate proposal to update the physician fee schedule for 2020, CMS is looking to increase Medicare payments in 2021 for evaluation and management (E/M) visits based on recommendations from the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (AMA-RUC).

With this update, the agency will be "rewarding the time that doctors spend with patients," Administrator Verma said.

The fact sheet on the proposed update to the physician fee schedule also highlights improvements to case management payments, allowing physicians to get paid for case management services if the patient only has one high-risk condition.

"For 2021, we are overhauling the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, to reduce reporting burden, making sure the measures are relevant to clinicians as they move toward value-based care," she said, noting that clinicians would be reporting on fewer, more meaningful measures that are aligned to their specialty or practice area, "making it easier to participate in MIPS."

Look for in depth analysis of both proposals shortly on this website.
 
[email protected]  

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is proposing improvements to physician payments and an overhaul of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) track of the Quality Payment Program.

In a separate proposal also released on July 29, the agency proposed that hospitals be required to make more pricing information publicly available.

The Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule for the 2020 annual update would require hospitals to not only publish their gross charges, but also the negotiated price by specific payer for select services that can be scheduled by a patient in advance.

The proposal states "that hospitals make public their standard changes (both gross charges and payer-specific negotiated charges) for all items and services online in a machine-readable format" which would allow them to be included in price transparency tools and electronic health records.

"Hospitals would be required to post all their payer-specific negotiated rates, which are the prices actually paid by insurers," CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a July 29 conference call with reporters.

As "deductibles rise and with 29 million uninsured, patients have the right to know the price of health care services so they can shop around for the best deal," she said.

The rule also comes with new enforcement tools so that CMS can ensure hospitals are complying with the rule, should it be finalized.

Hospitals would need to start publishing list prices and payer-specific negotiated prices beginning Jan. 1, 2020.

In a separate proposal to update the physician fee schedule for 2020, CMS is looking to increase Medicare payments in 2021 for evaluation and management (E/M) visits based on recommendations from the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (AMA-RUC).

With this update, the agency will be "rewarding the time that doctors spend with patients," Administrator Verma said.

The fact sheet on the proposed update to the physician fee schedule also highlights improvements to case management payments, allowing physicians to get paid for case management services if the patient only has one high-risk condition.

"For 2021, we are overhauling the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, or MIPS, to reduce reporting burden, making sure the measures are relevant to clinicians as they move toward value-based care," she said, noting that clinicians would be reporting on fewer, more meaningful measures that are aligned to their specialty or practice area, "making it easier to participate in MIPS."

Look for in depth analysis of both proposals shortly on this website.
 
[email protected]  

Concurrent or sequential enzyme immunoassays can now be conducted to diagnose Lyme disease, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Four previously cleared tests are now approved by the agency for marketing with new indications as part of the revised diagnostic approach. Previously, the two-step diagnostic process consisted of an initial enzyme immunoassay followed by a Western blot test.

“With today’s action, clinicians have a new option to test for Lyme that is easier to interpret by a clinical laboratory due to the streamlined method of conducting the test. These tests may improve confidence in diagnosing a patient for a condition that requires the earliest possible treatment to ensure the best outcome for patients,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, said in a press release announcing the newly approved approach.

The modified two-tier enzyme immunoassay approach was found to be as accurate for assessing exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi as the standard immunoassay followed by Western blot test in an FDA review of data from clinical studies using the following ZEUS Scientific ELISA Test Systems: Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgM; and Borrelia burgdorferi IgG.

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be followed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and for determining when laboratory tests are appropriate, the FDA statement said. In 2017, the last year for which the CDC published data, a total of 42,743 confirmed and probable cases of Lyme disease were reported, an increase of 17% from 2016.

The FDA granted clearance of the ZEUS ELISA enzyme immunoassay tests to ZEUS Scientific.

[email protected]

Concurrent or sequential enzyme immunoassays can now be conducted to diagnose Lyme disease, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Four previously cleared tests are now approved by the agency for marketing with new indications as part of the revised diagnostic approach. Previously, the two-step diagnostic process consisted of an initial enzyme immunoassay followed by a Western blot test.

“With today’s action, clinicians have a new option to test for Lyme that is easier to interpret by a clinical laboratory due to the streamlined method of conducting the test. These tests may improve confidence in diagnosing a patient for a condition that requires the earliest possible treatment to ensure the best outcome for patients,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, said in a press release announcing the newly approved approach.

The modified two-tier enzyme immunoassay approach was found to be as accurate for assessing exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi as the standard immunoassay followed by Western blot test in an FDA review of data from clinical studies using the following ZEUS Scientific ELISA Test Systems: Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgM; and Borrelia burgdorferi IgG.

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be followed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and for determining when laboratory tests are appropriate, the FDA statement said. In 2017, the last year for which the CDC published data, a total of 42,743 confirmed and probable cases of Lyme disease were reported, an increase of 17% from 2016.

The FDA granted clearance of the ZEUS ELISA enzyme immunoassay tests to ZEUS Scientific.

[email protected]

Concurrent or sequential enzyme immunoassays can now be conducted to diagnose Lyme disease, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Four previously cleared tests are now approved by the agency for marketing with new indications as part of the revised diagnostic approach. Previously, the two-step diagnostic process consisted of an initial enzyme immunoassay followed by a Western blot test.

“With today’s action, clinicians have a new option to test for Lyme that is easier to interpret by a clinical laboratory due to the streamlined method of conducting the test. These tests may improve confidence in diagnosing a patient for a condition that requires the earliest possible treatment to ensure the best outcome for patients,” Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiologic Health, said in a press release announcing the newly approved approach.

The modified two-tier enzyme immunoassay approach was found to be as accurate for assessing exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi as the standard immunoassay followed by Western blot test in an FDA review of data from clinical studies using the following ZEUS Scientific ELISA Test Systems: Borrelia VlsE1/pepC10 IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgG/IgM; Borrelia burgdorferi IgM; and Borrelia burgdorferi IgG.

The recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be followed for the diagnosis of Lyme disease and for determining when laboratory tests are appropriate, the FDA statement said. In 2017, the last year for which the CDC published data, a total of 42,743 confirmed and probable cases of Lyme disease were reported, an increase of 17% from 2016.

The FDA granted clearance of the ZEUS ELISA enzyme immunoassay tests to ZEUS Scientific.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – An additional 14% of Americans have been reclassified as having hypertension – an increase from 32% to 46% of adults – under the latest guidelines on management of high blood pressure released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in 2017. However, this does not mean these patients are mandated for pharmacologic therapy, since most of them have been reclassified as having stage 1 hypertension, said Leslie L. Davis, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, FPCNA, FAANP, FAHA, associate professor of nursing at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

According to the new guidelines, normal BP is classified as less than 120 mm Hg systolic and less than 80 mm Hg diastolic. Elevated BP is 120-129 mm Hg systolic and under 80 mm Hg diastolic, while patients are classified as having stage 1 hypertension if their systolic BP is 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP is 80-90 mm Hg. Patients now have stage 2 hypertension if their systolic BP is higher than 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP is above 90 mm Hg.

This raises the importance of getting an accurate BP measurement from patients. At least two readings over two or more visits should be used before categorizing a patient. To take an ideal reading, patients should be sitting at rest with their back supported, feet positioned on a flat surface (no crossing legs), and their arm at heart level for at least 5 minutes. Patients should also refrain from tobacco or caffeine use 30 minutes before the reading. “These numbers need to be correct, because we’ve got new [BP] categories, and also for managing blood pressure, you’re making decisions based on these numbers,” said Dr. Davis at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

When taking a patient’s BP, neither the patient nor the provider should talk, and constricting clothes on the upper extremity should be removed instead of pushed up. Using a incorrectly sized cuff can artificially raise or lower a patient’s BP level, so clinicians should use one that is 80% of the length and 40% of the width of the patient’s arm circumference. If the BP reading is elevated, confirm the reading in the other arm and use the arm with the higher reading for future measurements. BP measurements taken in different settings, such as ambulatory BP monitoring or home BP monitoring, can help give context to the in-office reading and whether the patient has white-coat hypertension or masked hypertension.

After a patient has their accurate BP reading, they can calculate their atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk using the ACC’s ASCVD Risk Estimator, said Dr. Davis. If a patient has confirmed cardiovascular disease or has a 10% or greater 10-year ASCVD risk, the target to lower BP is 130 based on high-quality evidence, but expert opinion recommends targeting 130/80 for patients with confirmed hypertension as well.

In terms of nonpharmacologic therapies for these patients, the largest benefit is in getting patients to lose weight. “If somebody is overweight or obese, 10 pounds is 10 points,” said Dr. Davis. “Even if you don’t get them to the appropriate body mass index over 3 months’ time, that’s as much as a low or medium dose of antihypertensive therapy. For you to be able to get double-digit reduction, that’s what a med does.”

Other nonpharmacologic interventions for these patients include a heart-healthy diet such as the DASH diet, lowering sodium and increasing potassium, structuring exercise and physical activity, lowering use of or avoiding alcohol, and smoking cessation. The goal of nonpharmacologic therapy is not only to lower BP, but make the medication work better, said Dr. Davis.

Pharmacologic therapy should be initiated when patients exceed or are above the cutoff values for the new BP categories and if a patient has already had a cardiovascular event. “Basically, if you’re above that line in the sand of your goal, that’s when to start medications,” she said.

For stage 1 hypertension, first-line therapy is lifestyle change plus thiazides, calcium-channel blockers, or ACE inhibitors, with stage 1 hypertension therapy consisting of a combination of two first-line therapy therapies to reduce systolic BP by about 20 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 10 mm Hg. Beta-blockers are not first-line antihypertension therapy, but can be considered in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

With regard to follow-up, patients with low ASCVD risk and stage 1 hypertension can be monitored in 3-6 months after lifestyle changes, while patients with high ASCVD risk and stage 1 hypertension should be followed up in 1 month. Patients with stage 2 hypertension should follow up with their primary care provider 1 month after beginning their therapy, and those with very high BP should promptly be started on drug treatment with lifestyle changes, with upward dose adjustments as needed.

In adults aged 65 years or older, the ACC/AHA guidelines also focused on how to prevent cognitive decline and dementia, said Dr. Davis. The goal for ambulatory, community-dwelling adults is still to have a systolic BP of less than 130 mm Hg, but clinical judgment should prevail because of comorbid conditions and limited life expectancy in these patients. Patient preference should also be considered, and clinicians should use a team-based approach with shared decision making to determine goals for each patient.

Dr. Davis reported no relevant financial disclosures. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – An additional 14% of Americans have been reclassified as having hypertension – an increase from 32% to 46% of adults – under the latest guidelines on management of high blood pressure released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in 2017. However, this does not mean these patients are mandated for pharmacologic therapy, since most of them have been reclassified as having stage 1 hypertension, said Leslie L. Davis, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, FPCNA, FAANP, FAHA, associate professor of nursing at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

According to the new guidelines, normal BP is classified as less than 120 mm Hg systolic and less than 80 mm Hg diastolic. Elevated BP is 120-129 mm Hg systolic and under 80 mm Hg diastolic, while patients are classified as having stage 1 hypertension if their systolic BP is 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP is 80-90 mm Hg. Patients now have stage 2 hypertension if their systolic BP is higher than 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP is above 90 mm Hg.

This raises the importance of getting an accurate BP measurement from patients. At least two readings over two or more visits should be used before categorizing a patient. To take an ideal reading, patients should be sitting at rest with their back supported, feet positioned on a flat surface (no crossing legs), and their arm at heart level for at least 5 minutes. Patients should also refrain from tobacco or caffeine use 30 minutes before the reading. “These numbers need to be correct, because we’ve got new [BP] categories, and also for managing blood pressure, you’re making decisions based on these numbers,” said Dr. Davis at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

When taking a patient’s BP, neither the patient nor the provider should talk, and constricting clothes on the upper extremity should be removed instead of pushed up. Using a incorrectly sized cuff can artificially raise or lower a patient’s BP level, so clinicians should use one that is 80% of the length and 40% of the width of the patient’s arm circumference. If the BP reading is elevated, confirm the reading in the other arm and use the arm with the higher reading for future measurements. BP measurements taken in different settings, such as ambulatory BP monitoring or home BP monitoring, can help give context to the in-office reading and whether the patient has white-coat hypertension or masked hypertension.

After a patient has their accurate BP reading, they can calculate their atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk using the ACC’s ASCVD Risk Estimator, said Dr. Davis. If a patient has confirmed cardiovascular disease or has a 10% or greater 10-year ASCVD risk, the target to lower BP is 130 based on high-quality evidence, but expert opinion recommends targeting 130/80 for patients with confirmed hypertension as well.

In terms of nonpharmacologic therapies for these patients, the largest benefit is in getting patients to lose weight. “If somebody is overweight or obese, 10 pounds is 10 points,” said Dr. Davis. “Even if you don’t get them to the appropriate body mass index over 3 months’ time, that’s as much as a low or medium dose of antihypertensive therapy. For you to be able to get double-digit reduction, that’s what a med does.”

Other nonpharmacologic interventions for these patients include a heart-healthy diet such as the DASH diet, lowering sodium and increasing potassium, structuring exercise and physical activity, lowering use of or avoiding alcohol, and smoking cessation. The goal of nonpharmacologic therapy is not only to lower BP, but make the medication work better, said Dr. Davis.

Pharmacologic therapy should be initiated when patients exceed or are above the cutoff values for the new BP categories and if a patient has already had a cardiovascular event. “Basically, if you’re above that line in the sand of your goal, that’s when to start medications,” she said.

For stage 1 hypertension, first-line therapy is lifestyle change plus thiazides, calcium-channel blockers, or ACE inhibitors, with stage 1 hypertension therapy consisting of a combination of two first-line therapy therapies to reduce systolic BP by about 20 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 10 mm Hg. Beta-blockers are not first-line antihypertension therapy, but can be considered in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

With regard to follow-up, patients with low ASCVD risk and stage 1 hypertension can be monitored in 3-6 months after lifestyle changes, while patients with high ASCVD risk and stage 1 hypertension should be followed up in 1 month. Patients with stage 2 hypertension should follow up with their primary care provider 1 month after beginning their therapy, and those with very high BP should promptly be started on drug treatment with lifestyle changes, with upward dose adjustments as needed.

In adults aged 65 years or older, the ACC/AHA guidelines also focused on how to prevent cognitive decline and dementia, said Dr. Davis. The goal for ambulatory, community-dwelling adults is still to have a systolic BP of less than 130 mm Hg, but clinical judgment should prevail because of comorbid conditions and limited life expectancy in these patients. Patient preference should also be considered, and clinicians should use a team-based approach with shared decision making to determine goals for each patient.

Dr. Davis reported no relevant financial disclosures. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – An additional 14% of Americans have been reclassified as having hypertension – an increase from 32% to 46% of adults – under the latest guidelines on management of high blood pressure released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in 2017. However, this does not mean these patients are mandated for pharmacologic therapy, since most of them have been reclassified as having stage 1 hypertension, said Leslie L. Davis, PhD, RN, ANP-BC, FPCNA, FAANP, FAHA, associate professor of nursing at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

According to the new guidelines, normal BP is classified as less than 120 mm Hg systolic and less than 80 mm Hg diastolic. Elevated BP is 120-129 mm Hg systolic and under 80 mm Hg diastolic, while patients are classified as having stage 1 hypertension if their systolic BP is 130-139 mm Hg or diastolic BP is 80-90 mm Hg. Patients now have stage 2 hypertension if their systolic BP is higher than 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP is above 90 mm Hg.

This raises the importance of getting an accurate BP measurement from patients. At least two readings over two or more visits should be used before categorizing a patient. To take an ideal reading, patients should be sitting at rest with their back supported, feet positioned on a flat surface (no crossing legs), and their arm at heart level for at least 5 minutes. Patients should also refrain from tobacco or caffeine use 30 minutes before the reading. “These numbers need to be correct, because we’ve got new [BP] categories, and also for managing blood pressure, you’re making decisions based on these numbers,” said Dr. Davis at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

When taking a patient’s BP, neither the patient nor the provider should talk, and constricting clothes on the upper extremity should be removed instead of pushed up. Using a incorrectly sized cuff can artificially raise or lower a patient’s BP level, so clinicians should use one that is 80% of the length and 40% of the width of the patient’s arm circumference. If the BP reading is elevated, confirm the reading in the other arm and use the arm with the higher reading for future measurements. BP measurements taken in different settings, such as ambulatory BP monitoring or home BP monitoring, can help give context to the in-office reading and whether the patient has white-coat hypertension or masked hypertension.

After a patient has their accurate BP reading, they can calculate their atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk using the ACC’s ASCVD Risk Estimator, said Dr. Davis. If a patient has confirmed cardiovascular disease or has a 10% or greater 10-year ASCVD risk, the target to lower BP is 130 based on high-quality evidence, but expert opinion recommends targeting 130/80 for patients with confirmed hypertension as well.

In terms of nonpharmacologic therapies for these patients, the largest benefit is in getting patients to lose weight. “If somebody is overweight or obese, 10 pounds is 10 points,” said Dr. Davis. “Even if you don’t get them to the appropriate body mass index over 3 months’ time, that’s as much as a low or medium dose of antihypertensive therapy. For you to be able to get double-digit reduction, that’s what a med does.”

Other nonpharmacologic interventions for these patients include a heart-healthy diet such as the DASH diet, lowering sodium and increasing potassium, structuring exercise and physical activity, lowering use of or avoiding alcohol, and smoking cessation. The goal of nonpharmacologic therapy is not only to lower BP, but make the medication work better, said Dr. Davis.

Pharmacologic therapy should be initiated when patients exceed or are above the cutoff values for the new BP categories and if a patient has already had a cardiovascular event. “Basically, if you’re above that line in the sand of your goal, that’s when to start medications,” she said.

For stage 1 hypertension, first-line therapy is lifestyle change plus thiazides, calcium-channel blockers, or ACE inhibitors, with stage 1 hypertension therapy consisting of a combination of two first-line therapy therapies to reduce systolic BP by about 20 mm Hg and diastolic BP by 10 mm Hg. Beta-blockers are not first-line antihypertension therapy, but can be considered in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

With regard to follow-up, patients with low ASCVD risk and stage 1 hypertension can be monitored in 3-6 months after lifestyle changes, while patients with high ASCVD risk and stage 1 hypertension should be followed up in 1 month. Patients with stage 2 hypertension should follow up with their primary care provider 1 month after beginning their therapy, and those with very high BP should promptly be started on drug treatment with lifestyle changes, with upward dose adjustments as needed.

In adults aged 65 years or older, the ACC/AHA guidelines also focused on how to prevent cognitive decline and dementia, said Dr. Davis. The goal for ambulatory, community-dwelling adults is still to have a systolic BP of less than 130 mm Hg, but clinical judgment should prevail because of comorbid conditions and limited life expectancy in these patients. Patient preference should also be considered, and clinicians should use a team-based approach with shared decision making to determine goals for each patient.

Dr. Davis reported no relevant financial disclosures. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Case

A 42-year-old woman with uncontrolled diabetes presents to the ED with fever, chills, dysuria, and flank pain for 3 days. On exam, she is febrile and tachycardic. Lab results show leukocytosis and urinalysis is consistent with infection. CT scan shows acute pyelonephritis without complication. She is admitted to the hospital and started on ceftriaxone 2 g/24 hrs. On hospital day 2, her blood cultures show gram-negative bacteria.

Brief overview

Management of gram-negative (GN) bacteremia remains a challenging clinical situation for inpatient providers. With the push for high-value care and reductions in length of stay, recent literature has focused on reviewing current practices and attempting to standardize care. Despite this, no overarching guidelines exist to direct practice and clinicians are left to make decisions based on prior experience and expert opinion. Three key clinical questions exist when caring for a hospitalized patient with GN bacteremia: Should blood cultures be repeated? When is transition to oral antibiotics appropriate? And for what duration should antibiotics be given?

Overview of the data

When considering repeating blood cultures, it is important to understand that current literature does not support the practice for all GN bacteremias.

Canzoneri et al. retrospectively studied GN bacteremia and found that it took 17 repeat blood cultures being drawn to yield 1 positive result, which suggests that they are not necessary in all cases.¹ Furthermore, repeat blood cultures increase cost of hospitalization, length of stay, and inconvenience to patients.²

However, Mushtaq et al. noted that repeating blood cultures can provide valuable information to confirm the response to treatment in patients with endovascular infection. Furthermore, they found that repeated blood cultures are also reasonable when the following scenarios are suspected: endocarditis or central line–associated infection, concern for multidrug resistant GN bacilli, and ongoing evidence of sepsis or patient decompensation.³

Consideration of a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics is a key decision point in the care of GN bacteremia. Without guidelines, clinicians are left to evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis.⁴ Studies have suggested that the transition should be guided by the condition of the patient, the type of infection, and the culture-derived sensitivities.⁵ Additionally, bioavailability of antibiotics (see Table 1) is an important consideration and a recent examination of oral antibiotic failure rates demonstrated that lower bioavailability antibiotics have an increased risk of failure (2% vs. 16%).⁶

In their study, Kutob et al. highlighted the importance of choosing not only an antibiotic of high bioavailability, but also an antibiotic dose which will support a high concentration of the antibiotic in the bloodstream.⁶ For example, they identify ciprofloxacin as a moderate bioavailability medication, but note that most cases they examined utilized 500 mg b.i.d., where the concentration-dependent killing and dose-dependent bioavailability would advocate for the use of 750 mg b.i.d. or 500 mg every 8 hours.

The heterogeneity of GN bloodstream infections also creates difficulty in standardization of care. The literature suggests that infection source plays a significant role in the type of GN bacteria isolated.^6,7 The best data for the transition to oral antibiotics exists with urologic sources and it remains unclear whether bacteria from other sources have higher risks of oral antibiotic failure.⁸

One recent study of 66 patients examined bacteremia in the setting of cholangitis and found that, once patients had stabilized, a switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was noninferior, but randomized, prospective trials have not been performed. Notably, patients were transitioned to orals only after they were found to have a fluoroquinolone-sensitive infection, allowing the study authors to use higher-bioavailability agents for the transition to orals.⁹ Multiple studies have highlighted the unique care required for certain infections, such as pseudomonal infections, which most experts agree requires a more conservative approach.^5,6

Fluoroquinolones are the bedrock of therapy for GN bacteremia because of historic in vivo experience and in vitro findings about bioavailability and dose-dependent killing, but they are also the antibiotic class associated with the highest hospitalization rates for antibiotic-associated adverse events.⁸ A recent noninferiority trial comparing the use of beta-lactams with fluoroquinolones found that beta-lactams were noninferior, though the study was flawed by the limited number of beta-lactam–using patients identified.⁸ It is clear that more investigation is needed before recommendations can be made regarding ideal oral antibiotics for GN bacteremia.

The transition to oral is reasonable given the following criteria: the patient has improved on intravenous antibiotics and source control has been achieved; the culture data have demonstrated sensitivity to the oral antibiotic of choice, with special care given to higher-risk bacteria such as Pseudomonas; the patient is able to take the oral antibiotic; and the oral antibiotic of choice has the highest bioavailability possible and is given at an appropriate dose to reach its highest killing and bioavailability concentrations.⁷

After evaluating the appropriateness of transition to oral antibiotics, the final decision is about duration of antibiotic therapy. Current Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines are based on expert opinion and recommend 7-14 days of therapy. As with many common infections, recent studies have focused on evaluating reduction in antibiotic durations.

Chotiprasitsakul et al. demonstrated no difference in mortality or morbidity in 385 propensity-matched pairs with treatment of Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia for 8 versus 15 days.¹⁰ A mixed meta-analysis performed in 2011 evaluated 24 randomized, controlled trials and found shorter durations (5-7 days) had similar outcomes to prolonged durations (7-21 days).¹¹ Recently, Yahav et al. performed a randomized control trial comparing 7- and 14-day regimens for uncomplicated GN bacteremia and found a 7-day course to be noninferior if patients were clinically stable by day 5 and had source control.¹²

It should be noted that not all studies have found that reduced durations are without harm. Nelson et al. performed a retrospective cohort analysis and found that reduced durations of antibiotics (7-10 days) increased mortality and recurrent infection when compared with a longer course (greater than 10 days).¹³ These contrary findings highlight the need for provider discretion in selecting a course of antibiotics as well as the need for further studies about optimal duration of antibiotics.
 

Application of the data

Returning to our case, on day 3, the patient’s fever had resolved and leukocytosis improved. In the absence of concern for persistent infection, repeat blood cultures were not performed. On day 4 initial blood cultures showed pan-sensitive Escherichia coli. The patient was transitioned to 750 mg oral ciprofloxacin b.i.d. to complete a 10-day course from first dose of ceftriaxone and was discharged from the hospital.

Bottom line

Management of GN bacteremia requires individualized care based on clinical presentation, but the data presented above can be used as broad guidelines to help reduce excess blood cultures, avoid prolonged use of intravenous antibiotics, and limit the duration of antibiotic exposure.

Dr. Imber is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and director of the Internal Medicine Simulation Education and Hospitalist Procedural Certification. Dr. Burns is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Chan is currently a chief resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico.

References

1. Canzoneri CN et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(11):1776-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix648.

2. Kang CK et al. Can a routine follow-up blood culture be justified in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia? A retrospective case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:365. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-365.

3. Mushtaq A et al. Repeating blood cultures after an initial bacteremia: When and how often? Cleve Clin J Med. 2019;86(2):89-92. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18001.

4. Nimmich EB et al. Development of institutional guidelines for management of gram-negative bloodstream infections: Incorporating local evidence. Hosp Pharm. 2017;52(10):691-7. doi: 10.1177/0018578717720506.

5. Hale AJ et al. When are oral antibiotics a safe and effective choice for bacterial bloodstream infections? An evidence-based narrative review. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2949.

6. Kutob LF et al. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.013.

7. Tamma PD et al. Association of 30-day mortality with oral step-down vs. continued intravenous therapy in patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6226.

8. Mercuro NJ et al. Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones vs. B-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007.

9. Park TY et al. Early oral antibiotic switch compared with conventional intravenous antibiotic therapy for acute cholangitis with bacteremia. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:2790-6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3233-0.

10. Chotiprasitsakul D et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):172-7. doi:10.1093/cid/cix767.

11. Havey TC et al. Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R267. doi:10.1186/cc10545.

12. Yahav D et al. Seven versus fourteen days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Dec. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1054.

13. Nelson AN et al. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infection. 2017;45(5):613-20. doi:10.1007/s15010-017-1020-5.

Case

A 42-year-old woman with uncontrolled diabetes presents to the ED with fever, chills, dysuria, and flank pain for 3 days. On exam, she is febrile and tachycardic. Lab results show leukocytosis and urinalysis is consistent with infection. CT scan shows acute pyelonephritis without complication. She is admitted to the hospital and started on ceftriaxone 2 g/24 hrs. On hospital day 2, her blood cultures show gram-negative bacteria.

Brief overview

Management of gram-negative (GN) bacteremia remains a challenging clinical situation for inpatient providers. With the push for high-value care and reductions in length of stay, recent literature has focused on reviewing current practices and attempting to standardize care. Despite this, no overarching guidelines exist to direct practice and clinicians are left to make decisions based on prior experience and expert opinion. Three key clinical questions exist when caring for a hospitalized patient with GN bacteremia: Should blood cultures be repeated? When is transition to oral antibiotics appropriate? And for what duration should antibiotics be given?

Overview of the data

When considering repeating blood cultures, it is important to understand that current literature does not support the practice for all GN bacteremias.

Canzoneri et al. retrospectively studied GN bacteremia and found that it took 17 repeat blood cultures being drawn to yield 1 positive result, which suggests that they are not necessary in all cases.¹ Furthermore, repeat blood cultures increase cost of hospitalization, length of stay, and inconvenience to patients.²

However, Mushtaq et al. noted that repeating blood cultures can provide valuable information to confirm the response to treatment in patients with endovascular infection. Furthermore, they found that repeated blood cultures are also reasonable when the following scenarios are suspected: endocarditis or central line–associated infection, concern for multidrug resistant GN bacilli, and ongoing evidence of sepsis or patient decompensation.³

Consideration of a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics is a key decision point in the care of GN bacteremia. Without guidelines, clinicians are left to evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis.⁴ Studies have suggested that the transition should be guided by the condition of the patient, the type of infection, and the culture-derived sensitivities.⁵ Additionally, bioavailability of antibiotics (see Table 1) is an important consideration and a recent examination of oral antibiotic failure rates demonstrated that lower bioavailability antibiotics have an increased risk of failure (2% vs. 16%).⁶

In their study, Kutob et al. highlighted the importance of choosing not only an antibiotic of high bioavailability, but also an antibiotic dose which will support a high concentration of the antibiotic in the bloodstream.⁶ For example, they identify ciprofloxacin as a moderate bioavailability medication, but note that most cases they examined utilized 500 mg b.i.d., where the concentration-dependent killing and dose-dependent bioavailability would advocate for the use of 750 mg b.i.d. or 500 mg every 8 hours.

The heterogeneity of GN bloodstream infections also creates difficulty in standardization of care. The literature suggests that infection source plays a significant role in the type of GN bacteria isolated.^6,7 The best data for the transition to oral antibiotics exists with urologic sources and it remains unclear whether bacteria from other sources have higher risks of oral antibiotic failure.⁸

One recent study of 66 patients examined bacteremia in the setting of cholangitis and found that, once patients had stabilized, a switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was noninferior, but randomized, prospective trials have not been performed. Notably, patients were transitioned to orals only after they were found to have a fluoroquinolone-sensitive infection, allowing the study authors to use higher-bioavailability agents for the transition to orals.⁹ Multiple studies have highlighted the unique care required for certain infections, such as pseudomonal infections, which most experts agree requires a more conservative approach.^5,6

Fluoroquinolones are the bedrock of therapy for GN bacteremia because of historic in vivo experience and in vitro findings about bioavailability and dose-dependent killing, but they are also the antibiotic class associated with the highest hospitalization rates for antibiotic-associated adverse events.⁸ A recent noninferiority trial comparing the use of beta-lactams with fluoroquinolones found that beta-lactams were noninferior, though the study was flawed by the limited number of beta-lactam–using patients identified.⁸ It is clear that more investigation is needed before recommendations can be made regarding ideal oral antibiotics for GN bacteremia.

The transition to oral is reasonable given the following criteria: the patient has improved on intravenous antibiotics and source control has been achieved; the culture data have demonstrated sensitivity to the oral antibiotic of choice, with special care given to higher-risk bacteria such as Pseudomonas; the patient is able to take the oral antibiotic; and the oral antibiotic of choice has the highest bioavailability possible and is given at an appropriate dose to reach its highest killing and bioavailability concentrations.⁷

After evaluating the appropriateness of transition to oral antibiotics, the final decision is about duration of antibiotic therapy. Current Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines are based on expert opinion and recommend 7-14 days of therapy. As with many common infections, recent studies have focused on evaluating reduction in antibiotic durations.

Chotiprasitsakul et al. demonstrated no difference in mortality or morbidity in 385 propensity-matched pairs with treatment of Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia for 8 versus 15 days.¹⁰ A mixed meta-analysis performed in 2011 evaluated 24 randomized, controlled trials and found shorter durations (5-7 days) had similar outcomes to prolonged durations (7-21 days).¹¹ Recently, Yahav et al. performed a randomized control trial comparing 7- and 14-day regimens for uncomplicated GN bacteremia and found a 7-day course to be noninferior if patients were clinically stable by day 5 and had source control.¹²

It should be noted that not all studies have found that reduced durations are without harm. Nelson et al. performed a retrospective cohort analysis and found that reduced durations of antibiotics (7-10 days) increased mortality and recurrent infection when compared with a longer course (greater than 10 days).¹³ These contrary findings highlight the need for provider discretion in selecting a course of antibiotics as well as the need for further studies about optimal duration of antibiotics.
 

Application of the data

Returning to our case, on day 3, the patient’s fever had resolved and leukocytosis improved. In the absence of concern for persistent infection, repeat blood cultures were not performed. On day 4 initial blood cultures showed pan-sensitive Escherichia coli. The patient was transitioned to 750 mg oral ciprofloxacin b.i.d. to complete a 10-day course from first dose of ceftriaxone and was discharged from the hospital.

Bottom line

Management of GN bacteremia requires individualized care based on clinical presentation, but the data presented above can be used as broad guidelines to help reduce excess blood cultures, avoid prolonged use of intravenous antibiotics, and limit the duration of antibiotic exposure.

Dr. Imber is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and director of the Internal Medicine Simulation Education and Hospitalist Procedural Certification. Dr. Burns is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Chan is currently a chief resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico.

References

1. Canzoneri CN et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(11):1776-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix648.

2. Kang CK et al. Can a routine follow-up blood culture be justified in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia? A retrospective case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:365. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-365.

3. Mushtaq A et al. Repeating blood cultures after an initial bacteremia: When and how often? Cleve Clin J Med. 2019;86(2):89-92. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18001.

4. Nimmich EB et al. Development of institutional guidelines for management of gram-negative bloodstream infections: Incorporating local evidence. Hosp Pharm. 2017;52(10):691-7. doi: 10.1177/0018578717720506.

5. Hale AJ et al. When are oral antibiotics a safe and effective choice for bacterial bloodstream infections? An evidence-based narrative review. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2949.

6. Kutob LF et al. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.013.

7. Tamma PD et al. Association of 30-day mortality with oral step-down vs. continued intravenous therapy in patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6226.

8. Mercuro NJ et al. Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones vs. B-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007.

9. Park TY et al. Early oral antibiotic switch compared with conventional intravenous antibiotic therapy for acute cholangitis with bacteremia. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:2790-6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3233-0.

10. Chotiprasitsakul D et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):172-7. doi:10.1093/cid/cix767.

11. Havey TC et al. Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R267. doi:10.1186/cc10545.

12. Yahav D et al. Seven versus fourteen days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Dec. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1054.

13. Nelson AN et al. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infection. 2017;45(5):613-20. doi:10.1007/s15010-017-1020-5.

Case

A 42-year-old woman with uncontrolled diabetes presents to the ED with fever, chills, dysuria, and flank pain for 3 days. On exam, she is febrile and tachycardic. Lab results show leukocytosis and urinalysis is consistent with infection. CT scan shows acute pyelonephritis without complication. She is admitted to the hospital and started on ceftriaxone 2 g/24 hrs. On hospital day 2, her blood cultures show gram-negative bacteria.

Brief overview

Management of gram-negative (GN) bacteremia remains a challenging clinical situation for inpatient providers. With the push for high-value care and reductions in length of stay, recent literature has focused on reviewing current practices and attempting to standardize care. Despite this, no overarching guidelines exist to direct practice and clinicians are left to make decisions based on prior experience and expert opinion. Three key clinical questions exist when caring for a hospitalized patient with GN bacteremia: Should blood cultures be repeated? When is transition to oral antibiotics appropriate? And for what duration should antibiotics be given?

Overview of the data

When considering repeating blood cultures, it is important to understand that current literature does not support the practice for all GN bacteremias.

Canzoneri et al. retrospectively studied GN bacteremia and found that it took 17 repeat blood cultures being drawn to yield 1 positive result, which suggests that they are not necessary in all cases.¹ Furthermore, repeat blood cultures increase cost of hospitalization, length of stay, and inconvenience to patients.²

However, Mushtaq et al. noted that repeating blood cultures can provide valuable information to confirm the response to treatment in patients with endovascular infection. Furthermore, they found that repeated blood cultures are also reasonable when the following scenarios are suspected: endocarditis or central line–associated infection, concern for multidrug resistant GN bacilli, and ongoing evidence of sepsis or patient decompensation.³

Consideration of a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics is a key decision point in the care of GN bacteremia. Without guidelines, clinicians are left to evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis.⁴ Studies have suggested that the transition should be guided by the condition of the patient, the type of infection, and the culture-derived sensitivities.⁵ Additionally, bioavailability of antibiotics (see Table 1) is an important consideration and a recent examination of oral antibiotic failure rates demonstrated that lower bioavailability antibiotics have an increased risk of failure (2% vs. 16%).⁶

In their study, Kutob et al. highlighted the importance of choosing not only an antibiotic of high bioavailability, but also an antibiotic dose which will support a high concentration of the antibiotic in the bloodstream.⁶ For example, they identify ciprofloxacin as a moderate bioavailability medication, but note that most cases they examined utilized 500 mg b.i.d., where the concentration-dependent killing and dose-dependent bioavailability would advocate for the use of 750 mg b.i.d. or 500 mg every 8 hours.

The heterogeneity of GN bloodstream infections also creates difficulty in standardization of care. The literature suggests that infection source plays a significant role in the type of GN bacteria isolated.^6,7 The best data for the transition to oral antibiotics exists with urologic sources and it remains unclear whether bacteria from other sources have higher risks of oral antibiotic failure.⁸

One recent study of 66 patients examined bacteremia in the setting of cholangitis and found that, once patients had stabilized, a switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was noninferior, but randomized, prospective trials have not been performed. Notably, patients were transitioned to orals only after they were found to have a fluoroquinolone-sensitive infection, allowing the study authors to use higher-bioavailability agents for the transition to orals.⁹ Multiple studies have highlighted the unique care required for certain infections, such as pseudomonal infections, which most experts agree requires a more conservative approach.^5,6

Fluoroquinolones are the bedrock of therapy for GN bacteremia because of historic in vivo experience and in vitro findings about bioavailability and dose-dependent killing, but they are also the antibiotic class associated with the highest hospitalization rates for antibiotic-associated adverse events.⁸ A recent noninferiority trial comparing the use of beta-lactams with fluoroquinolones found that beta-lactams were noninferior, though the study was flawed by the limited number of beta-lactam–using patients identified.⁸ It is clear that more investigation is needed before recommendations can be made regarding ideal oral antibiotics for GN bacteremia.

The transition to oral is reasonable given the following criteria: the patient has improved on intravenous antibiotics and source control has been achieved; the culture data have demonstrated sensitivity to the oral antibiotic of choice, with special care given to higher-risk bacteria such as Pseudomonas; the patient is able to take the oral antibiotic; and the oral antibiotic of choice has the highest bioavailability possible and is given at an appropriate dose to reach its highest killing and bioavailability concentrations.⁷

After evaluating the appropriateness of transition to oral antibiotics, the final decision is about duration of antibiotic therapy. Current Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines are based on expert opinion and recommend 7-14 days of therapy. As with many common infections, recent studies have focused on evaluating reduction in antibiotic durations.

Chotiprasitsakul et al. demonstrated no difference in mortality or morbidity in 385 propensity-matched pairs with treatment of Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia for 8 versus 15 days.¹⁰ A mixed meta-analysis performed in 2011 evaluated 24 randomized, controlled trials and found shorter durations (5-7 days) had similar outcomes to prolonged durations (7-21 days).¹¹ Recently, Yahav et al. performed a randomized control trial comparing 7- and 14-day regimens for uncomplicated GN bacteremia and found a 7-day course to be noninferior if patients were clinically stable by day 5 and had source control.¹²

It should be noted that not all studies have found that reduced durations are without harm. Nelson et al. performed a retrospective cohort analysis and found that reduced durations of antibiotics (7-10 days) increased mortality and recurrent infection when compared with a longer course (greater than 10 days).¹³ These contrary findings highlight the need for provider discretion in selecting a course of antibiotics as well as the need for further studies about optimal duration of antibiotics.
 

Application of the data

Returning to our case, on day 3, the patient’s fever had resolved and leukocytosis improved. In the absence of concern for persistent infection, repeat blood cultures were not performed. On day 4 initial blood cultures showed pan-sensitive Escherichia coli. The patient was transitioned to 750 mg oral ciprofloxacin b.i.d. to complete a 10-day course from first dose of ceftriaxone and was discharged from the hospital.

Bottom line

Management of GN bacteremia requires individualized care based on clinical presentation, but the data presented above can be used as broad guidelines to help reduce excess blood cultures, avoid prolonged use of intravenous antibiotics, and limit the duration of antibiotic exposure.

Dr. Imber is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and director of the Internal Medicine Simulation Education and Hospitalist Procedural Certification. Dr. Burns is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Chan is currently a chief resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico.

References

1. Canzoneri CN et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(11):1776-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix648.

2. Kang CK et al. Can a routine follow-up blood culture be justified in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia? A retrospective case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:365. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-365.

3. Mushtaq A et al. Repeating blood cultures after an initial bacteremia: When and how often? Cleve Clin J Med. 2019;86(2):89-92. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18001.

4. Nimmich EB et al. Development of institutional guidelines for management of gram-negative bloodstream infections: Incorporating local evidence. Hosp Pharm. 2017;52(10):691-7. doi: 10.1177/0018578717720506.

5. Hale AJ et al. When are oral antibiotics a safe and effective choice for bacterial bloodstream infections? An evidence-based narrative review. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2949.

6. Kutob LF et al. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.013.

7. Tamma PD et al. Association of 30-day mortality with oral step-down vs. continued intravenous therapy in patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6226.

8. Mercuro NJ et al. Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones vs. B-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007.

9. Park TY et al. Early oral antibiotic switch compared with conventional intravenous antibiotic therapy for acute cholangitis with bacteremia. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:2790-6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3233-0.

10. Chotiprasitsakul D et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):172-7. doi:10.1093/cid/cix767.

11. Havey TC et al. Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R267. doi:10.1186/cc10545.

12. Yahav D et al. Seven versus fourteen days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Dec. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1054.

13. Nelson AN et al. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infection. 2017;45(5):613-20. doi:10.1007/s15010-017-1020-5.

SAN DIEGO – Two leading figures in microbiome research took time during the annual Digestive Disease Week to share their perspective with members of the press. Identifying key research presented at the meeting and painting a broader picture of trends and challenges in research on the interplay with the microbiota with gut health, Colleen Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., cochair and principal investigator, AGA FMT Registry Steering Committee, led off the round table with a discussion of human research on fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) and obesity.

Purna Kashyap, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., member, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, delved into the potential for donor microbiota transplant to address small bowel disorders, such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and provided commentary regarding the potential – and limitations – of using FMT in functional bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Obesity

Dr. Kelly noted that two abstracts at the conference presented data about FMT in obesity. The first study was presented by Jessica Allegretti, MD, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the second study was presented by Elaine Yu, MD, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The two studies shared some similarities, but had some differences, said Dr. Kelly. “They both used lean donor encapsulated FMT ... and they both were placebo controlled, using placebo capsules.” The first study looked at metabolically healthy obese patients, while the second study included patients with mild to moderate insulin resistance.

Dr. Allegretti’s work looked at the effect that FMT from lean donors had on levels of a satiety peptide, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), while also looking at changes in weight and microbiota, as well as safety. Patients received an initial 30-capsule dose as well as two later doses of 12 capsules each. The 22-patient study, in which individuals were randomized 1:1 to FMT or placebo capsules, didn’t show statistically significant changes in GLP-1 levels or body mass index with FMT over the 12-week study period. “But they were able to show engraftment, which I think is an important thing that you do wonder about – over this period of time, the bacteria that came from the lean donor actually engrafted into the recipient and affected the diversity. The recipient became more similar to the donor,” said Dr. Kelly.

There were some clues among the findings that engraftment was effecting metabolic change in the recipient, she said, including differences in bile acid conversion among gut bacteria; also, lower levels of the primary bile acid taurocholic acid in recipients after FMT. “So it was a negative study in what she was looking for, but an example of these smaller studies kind of pushing the field along.”

In discussing the study presented by Dr. Yu that examined lean donor FMT in individuals with insulin resistance, Dr. Kelly said, “It was actually pretty sophisticated.” By using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamping, the investigators were able to measure insulin sensitivity based on glucose load. In this study of 24 individuals randomized 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo capsules, recipients received weekly doses over a period of 6 weeks. Here again, though Dr. Yu and colleagues again found engraftment, “they did not find the big changes in metabolic parameters that they hoped that they would,” said Dr. Kelly.

These two studies furthered previous work completed in the Netherlands examining lean donor FMT for individuals with metabolic syndrome. “Those [studies] did show both engraftment and some changes in insulin resistance,” but they were also small studies, noted Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kashyap pointed out that the earlier studies had shown in a subgroup analysis that response to FMT was limited to those patients who lacked microbial diversity pretransplant.

This makes some mechanistic sense when thinking about FMT’s greatest success to date: Treating Clostridioides difficile infection, a condition whose very hallmark is dysbiosis characterized by monospecies gut domination, noted Dr. Kashyap.

Added Dr. Kelly, “I think everyone’s hoping there’s going to be this pill that’s going to make us skinny, but I don’t think we’re going to find that with FMT and obesity. I do think these studies are important, because there’s so much animal data already, and we’re kind of like, ‘How much more can you do in mice?’ ” By translating this preclinical work into humans, the mechanisms of obesity and the role of the microbiome can be better understood.

IBS

Turning to functional bowel disorders, Dr. Kelly pointed out a new study examining FMT for IBS. “So far, the research has been pretty disappointing,” she noted. The study, presented by Prashant Singh, MBBS, a gastroenterology fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, examined FMT for patients with moderate to severe diarrhea-predominant IBS. The study had four arms, randomizing the 44 participants to FMT alone; pretreatment with metronidazole and ciprofloxacin or rifaximin, each followed by FMT; or placebo. “It really didn’t show any differences in their severity of IBS in any group; so no effect: a negative study,” said Dr. Kelly.

“It’s challenging. FMT is an appealing strategy because we don’t have to put a lot of thought process into it,” said Dr. Kashyap, but it’s no panacea. “We aren’t going to be able to treat everybody with FMT.

“The challenge with IBS is that if we look at all the compositional studies, the majority of them show that at least a big subset of patients with IBS already have a normal-appearing microbiome,” said Dr. Kashyap. In those patients, “It’s very hard to know what FMT is doing.” He noted that IBS subclassifications are made by pathophysiology, without regard to the intestinal microbiome, so these classifications may not be useful for determining who may benefit from FMT.

“Again, there’s always an opportunity to learn from these studies,” whether they’re positive or negative, as long as they’re well done, said Dr. Kashyap. “There’s always an opportunity to go back and see, was there a specific subgroup of patients who responded, where there might be one or more causes which might be more amenable” to FMT.

Small intestine

And most intestinal microbial research to date, noted Dr. Kelly, has focused on the colon. “Most of our knowledge is of fecal microbiota.” New techniques including double-balloon enteroscopy of the small bowel have promise to “provide completely new information about patterns of bacteria throughout the small bowel,” and of the role of small bowel bacteria in overall gut health, she said.

“The role of the small bowel has been ignored because of accessibility,” agreed Dr. Kashyap. There’s a current focus on research into enteroscopy and other techniques to sample small intestine microbiota, he said.

In a podium presentation, Eugene Chang, MD, Martin Boyer Professor in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine, gave a broad overview of how the small intestine microbiome modulates lipid regulation. This choice of topic for the Charles M. Mansbach Memorial Lecture shows that gastroenterologists are recognizing the importance of microbiome along the entire span of the gut, said Dr. Kashyap. Dr. Chang’s approach, he added, represents a departure in that “it’s not simply just looking at what’s present and what’s not, but seeing what’s functionally relevant to metabolism.”

“We always have known that the small intestine is the workhorse; that’s where everything happens” in terms of motility, absorption, and digestion, said Dr. Kashyap. “But because of our inability to reach it easily we’ve always chosen to ignore it; we always go after the low-hanging fruit.” Despite challenges, more microbiome research should be small-bowel focused. “Eventually, it’s no pain, no gain.”

Dr. Kashyap is on the advisory board of uBiome, and is an ad hoc advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kelly reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated on July 30, 2019.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Two leading figures in microbiome research took time during the annual Digestive Disease Week to share their perspective with members of the press. Identifying key research presented at the meeting and painting a broader picture of trends and challenges in research on the interplay with the microbiota with gut health, Colleen Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., cochair and principal investigator, AGA FMT Registry Steering Committee, led off the round table with a discussion of human research on fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) and obesity.

Purna Kashyap, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., member, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, delved into the potential for donor microbiota transplant to address small bowel disorders, such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and provided commentary regarding the potential – and limitations – of using FMT in functional bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Obesity

Dr. Kelly noted that two abstracts at the conference presented data about FMT in obesity. The first study was presented by Jessica Allegretti, MD, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the second study was presented by Elaine Yu, MD, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The two studies shared some similarities, but had some differences, said Dr. Kelly. “They both used lean donor encapsulated FMT ... and they both were placebo controlled, using placebo capsules.” The first study looked at metabolically healthy obese patients, while the second study included patients with mild to moderate insulin resistance.

Dr. Allegretti’s work looked at the effect that FMT from lean donors had on levels of a satiety peptide, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), while also looking at changes in weight and microbiota, as well as safety. Patients received an initial 30-capsule dose as well as two later doses of 12 capsules each. The 22-patient study, in which individuals were randomized 1:1 to FMT or placebo capsules, didn’t show statistically significant changes in GLP-1 levels or body mass index with FMT over the 12-week study period. “But they were able to show engraftment, which I think is an important thing that you do wonder about – over this period of time, the bacteria that came from the lean donor actually engrafted into the recipient and affected the diversity. The recipient became more similar to the donor,” said Dr. Kelly.

There were some clues among the findings that engraftment was effecting metabolic change in the recipient, she said, including differences in bile acid conversion among gut bacteria; also, lower levels of the primary bile acid taurocholic acid in recipients after FMT. “So it was a negative study in what she was looking for, but an example of these smaller studies kind of pushing the field along.”

In discussing the study presented by Dr. Yu that examined lean donor FMT in individuals with insulin resistance, Dr. Kelly said, “It was actually pretty sophisticated.” By using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamping, the investigators were able to measure insulin sensitivity based on glucose load. In this study of 24 individuals randomized 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo capsules, recipients received weekly doses over a period of 6 weeks. Here again, though Dr. Yu and colleagues again found engraftment, “they did not find the big changes in metabolic parameters that they hoped that they would,” said Dr. Kelly.

These two studies furthered previous work completed in the Netherlands examining lean donor FMT for individuals with metabolic syndrome. “Those [studies] did show both engraftment and some changes in insulin resistance,” but they were also small studies, noted Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kashyap pointed out that the earlier studies had shown in a subgroup analysis that response to FMT was limited to those patients who lacked microbial diversity pretransplant.

This makes some mechanistic sense when thinking about FMT’s greatest success to date: Treating Clostridioides difficile infection, a condition whose very hallmark is dysbiosis characterized by monospecies gut domination, noted Dr. Kashyap.

Added Dr. Kelly, “I think everyone’s hoping there’s going to be this pill that’s going to make us skinny, but I don’t think we’re going to find that with FMT and obesity. I do think these studies are important, because there’s so much animal data already, and we’re kind of like, ‘How much more can you do in mice?’ ” By translating this preclinical work into humans, the mechanisms of obesity and the role of the microbiome can be better understood.

IBS

Turning to functional bowel disorders, Dr. Kelly pointed out a new study examining FMT for IBS. “So far, the research has been pretty disappointing,” she noted. The study, presented by Prashant Singh, MBBS, a gastroenterology fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, examined FMT for patients with moderate to severe diarrhea-predominant IBS. The study had four arms, randomizing the 44 participants to FMT alone; pretreatment with metronidazole and ciprofloxacin or rifaximin, each followed by FMT; or placebo. “It really didn’t show any differences in their severity of IBS in any group; so no effect: a negative study,” said Dr. Kelly.

“It’s challenging. FMT is an appealing strategy because we don’t have to put a lot of thought process into it,” said Dr. Kashyap, but it’s no panacea. “We aren’t going to be able to treat everybody with FMT.

“The challenge with IBS is that if we look at all the compositional studies, the majority of them show that at least a big subset of patients with IBS already have a normal-appearing microbiome,” said Dr. Kashyap. In those patients, “It’s very hard to know what FMT is doing.” He noted that IBS subclassifications are made by pathophysiology, without regard to the intestinal microbiome, so these classifications may not be useful for determining who may benefit from FMT.

“Again, there’s always an opportunity to learn from these studies,” whether they’re positive or negative, as long as they’re well done, said Dr. Kashyap. “There’s always an opportunity to go back and see, was there a specific subgroup of patients who responded, where there might be one or more causes which might be more amenable” to FMT.

Small intestine

And most intestinal microbial research to date, noted Dr. Kelly, has focused on the colon. “Most of our knowledge is of fecal microbiota.” New techniques including double-balloon enteroscopy of the small bowel have promise to “provide completely new information about patterns of bacteria throughout the small bowel,” and of the role of small bowel bacteria in overall gut health, she said.

“The role of the small bowel has been ignored because of accessibility,” agreed Dr. Kashyap. There’s a current focus on research into enteroscopy and other techniques to sample small intestine microbiota, he said.

In a podium presentation, Eugene Chang, MD, Martin Boyer Professor in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine, gave a broad overview of how the small intestine microbiome modulates lipid regulation. This choice of topic for the Charles M. Mansbach Memorial Lecture shows that gastroenterologists are recognizing the importance of microbiome along the entire span of the gut, said Dr. Kashyap. Dr. Chang’s approach, he added, represents a departure in that “it’s not simply just looking at what’s present and what’s not, but seeing what’s functionally relevant to metabolism.”

“We always have known that the small intestine is the workhorse; that’s where everything happens” in terms of motility, absorption, and digestion, said Dr. Kashyap. “But because of our inability to reach it easily we’ve always chosen to ignore it; we always go after the low-hanging fruit.” Despite challenges, more microbiome research should be small-bowel focused. “Eventually, it’s no pain, no gain.”

Dr. Kashyap is on the advisory board of uBiome, and is an ad hoc advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kelly reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated on July 30, 2019.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Two leading figures in microbiome research took time during the annual Digestive Disease Week to share their perspective with members of the press. Identifying key research presented at the meeting and painting a broader picture of trends and challenges in research on the interplay with the microbiota with gut health, Colleen Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., cochair and principal investigator, AGA FMT Registry Steering Committee, led off the round table with a discussion of human research on fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) and obesity.

Purna Kashyap, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., member, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, delved into the potential for donor microbiota transplant to address small bowel disorders, such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and provided commentary regarding the potential – and limitations – of using FMT in functional bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Obesity

Dr. Kelly noted that two abstracts at the conference presented data about FMT in obesity. The first study was presented by Jessica Allegretti, MD, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the second study was presented by Elaine Yu, MD, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The two studies shared some similarities, but had some differences, said Dr. Kelly. “They both used lean donor encapsulated FMT ... and they both were placebo controlled, using placebo capsules.” The first study looked at metabolically healthy obese patients, while the second study included patients with mild to moderate insulin resistance.

Dr. Allegretti’s work looked at the effect that FMT from lean donors had on levels of a satiety peptide, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), while also looking at changes in weight and microbiota, as well as safety. Patients received an initial 30-capsule dose as well as two later doses of 12 capsules each. The 22-patient study, in which individuals were randomized 1:1 to FMT or placebo capsules, didn’t show statistically significant changes in GLP-1 levels or body mass index with FMT over the 12-week study period. “But they were able to show engraftment, which I think is an important thing that you do wonder about – over this period of time, the bacteria that came from the lean donor actually engrafted into the recipient and affected the diversity. The recipient became more similar to the donor,” said Dr. Kelly.

There were some clues among the findings that engraftment was effecting metabolic change in the recipient, she said, including differences in bile acid conversion among gut bacteria; also, lower levels of the primary bile acid taurocholic acid in recipients after FMT. “So it was a negative study in what she was looking for, but an example of these smaller studies kind of pushing the field along.”

In discussing the study presented by Dr. Yu that examined lean donor FMT in individuals with insulin resistance, Dr. Kelly said, “It was actually pretty sophisticated.” By using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamping, the investigators were able to measure insulin sensitivity based on glucose load. In this study of 24 individuals randomized 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo capsules, recipients received weekly doses over a period of 6 weeks. Here again, though Dr. Yu and colleagues again found engraftment, “they did not find the big changes in metabolic parameters that they hoped that they would,” said Dr. Kelly.

These two studies furthered previous work completed in the Netherlands examining lean donor FMT for individuals with metabolic syndrome. “Those [studies] did show both engraftment and some changes in insulin resistance,” but they were also small studies, noted Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kashyap pointed out that the earlier studies had shown in a subgroup analysis that response to FMT was limited to those patients who lacked microbial diversity pretransplant.

This makes some mechanistic sense when thinking about FMT’s greatest success to date: Treating Clostridioides difficile infection, a condition whose very hallmark is dysbiosis characterized by monospecies gut domination, noted Dr. Kashyap.

Added Dr. Kelly, “I think everyone’s hoping there’s going to be this pill that’s going to make us skinny, but I don’t think we’re going to find that with FMT and obesity. I do think these studies are important, because there’s so much animal data already, and we’re kind of like, ‘How much more can you do in mice?’ ” By translating this preclinical work into humans, the mechanisms of obesity and the role of the microbiome can be better understood.

IBS

Turning to functional bowel disorders, Dr. Kelly pointed out a new study examining FMT for IBS. “So far, the research has been pretty disappointing,” she noted. The study, presented by Prashant Singh, MBBS, a gastroenterology fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, examined FMT for patients with moderate to severe diarrhea-predominant IBS. The study had four arms, randomizing the 44 participants to FMT alone; pretreatment with metronidazole and ciprofloxacin or rifaximin, each followed by FMT; or placebo. “It really didn’t show any differences in their severity of IBS in any group; so no effect: a negative study,” said Dr. Kelly.

“It’s challenging. FMT is an appealing strategy because we don’t have to put a lot of thought process into it,” said Dr. Kashyap, but it’s no panacea. “We aren’t going to be able to treat everybody with FMT.

“The challenge with IBS is that if we look at all the compositional studies, the majority of them show that at least a big subset of patients with IBS already have a normal-appearing microbiome,” said Dr. Kashyap. In those patients, “It’s very hard to know what FMT is doing.” He noted that IBS subclassifications are made by pathophysiology, without regard to the intestinal microbiome, so these classifications may not be useful for determining who may benefit from FMT.

“Again, there’s always an opportunity to learn from these studies,” whether they’re positive or negative, as long as they’re well done, said Dr. Kashyap. “There’s always an opportunity to go back and see, was there a specific subgroup of patients who responded, where there might be one or more causes which might be more amenable” to FMT.

Small intestine

And most intestinal microbial research to date, noted Dr. Kelly, has focused on the colon. “Most of our knowledge is of fecal microbiota.” New techniques including double-balloon enteroscopy of the small bowel have promise to “provide completely new information about patterns of bacteria throughout the small bowel,” and of the role of small bowel bacteria in overall gut health, she said.

“The role of the small bowel has been ignored because of accessibility,” agreed Dr. Kashyap. There’s a current focus on research into enteroscopy and other techniques to sample small intestine microbiota, he said.

In a podium presentation, Eugene Chang, MD, Martin Boyer Professor in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine, gave a broad overview of how the small intestine microbiome modulates lipid regulation. This choice of topic for the Charles M. Mansbach Memorial Lecture shows that gastroenterologists are recognizing the importance of microbiome along the entire span of the gut, said Dr. Kashyap. Dr. Chang’s approach, he added, represents a departure in that “it’s not simply just looking at what’s present and what’s not, but seeing what’s functionally relevant to metabolism.”

“We always have known that the small intestine is the workhorse; that’s where everything happens” in terms of motility, absorption, and digestion, said Dr. Kashyap. “But because of our inability to reach it easily we’ve always chosen to ignore it; we always go after the low-hanging fruit.” Despite challenges, more microbiome research should be small-bowel focused. “Eventually, it’s no pain, no gain.”

Dr. Kashyap is on the advisory board of uBiome, and is an ad hoc advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kelly reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated on July 30, 2019.

[email protected]

Clinical question: Among older adults, what attitudes exist toward deprescribing?

Background: Polypharmacy in older adults is common and can be associated with increased hospitalizations and reduced quality of life.

Study design: Population-based survey study.

Setting: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: Among older adults, what attitudes exist toward deprescribing?

Background: Polypharmacy in older adults is common and can be associated with increased hospitalizations and reduced quality of life.

Study design: Population-based survey study.

Setting: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: Among older adults, what attitudes exist toward deprescribing?

Background: Polypharmacy in older adults is common and can be associated with increased hospitalizations and reduced quality of life.

Study design: Population-based survey study.

Setting: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

NEW YORK – Clinicians should resist the temptation to use untrained interpreters, such as a child, another relative, or their own limited language skills, when treating patients who cannot communicate in English, according to an expert reviewing this issue at the American Academy of Dermatology summer meeting.

In clinical encounters with patients who have limited English proficiency, “it is both our legal and our ethical responsibility to communicate through qualified interpreters,” reported Amy Y.Y. Chen, MD, who is affiliated with Central Connecticut Dermatology in Canton.

In many situations, interpreter services are required by law. This includes a provision of the 1963 Civil Rights Act that specifies these services should be made available to any individual with limited English proficiency receiving federal financial assistance (with the exception of Medicare Part B).

In reviewing this and other laws, Dr. Chen explained that many prohibitions are explicit. For example, it is against the law for clinicians to communicate with the patient through children, whether or not they are related to the patient. A patient’s adult companions are also prohibited from interpreting unless the patient has provided express permission.

Despite the rules, some clinicians might be tempted to forgo a translator when none is readily available, opting for an improvised solution. Dr. Chen said that this is ill advised even when it is not illegal.

“There are a lot of potential problems with using nonprofessional interpreters, starting with the issue of confidentiality,” Dr. Chen warned.

As defined by the Department of Health & Human Services, a qualified interpreter establishes competency by developing familiarity with specialized terminology; by communicating accurately, effectively, and impartially; and by recognizing the ethical issues, including confidentiality, essential to their role.

By itself, language fluency might not be sufficient. Many physicians have conversational fluency in one or more languages other than English, but Dr. Chen pointed out that complex and nuanced clinical descriptions might be difficult to follow for a nonnative speaker. Moreover, many individuals who have no problem posing questions in a foreign language don’t do nearly as well in following the answers.

As interpreters, family members can be particularly problematic. In addition to the issues of confidentiality and medical terminology, a family member might have his or her own agenda that influences how questions and answers are conveyed.

Moreover, family members and others untrained in translating might edit answers based on their own sense of relevance. Many clinicians working through an interpreter will recognize the experience of receiving a yes or no answer after a lengthy discussion between a nontrained interpreter and patient. In such situations, the clinician can reasonably worry that important information was lost.

Typically, major hospitals already offer a systematic approach to providing interpreters when needed, but physicians working in private practice or other smaller practice settings might not. According to Dr. Chen, who recently collaborated on review of this issue (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Mar;80:829-31), they should.

Interpreter services are available by telephone or Internet. Fees typically fall in the range of $2-$5 per minute. In offices with bilingual staff members, formal medical interpreter training might make sense. The Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters and the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters can help in this process.

When using a medical interpreter, Dr. Chen had some tips.

“Maintain eye contact and talk to the patient,” said Dr. Chen, suggesting that the interpreter, if present in the room, be seated next to or behind the patient. Whether the interpreter is in the room or participating remotely, Dr. Chen advised against speaking through the interpreter with such phases as “tell her that.” Rather, she advised speaking directly to the patient with the interpreter providing the translation.

More practically, Dr. Chen recommended speaking slowly and posing only one question at a time. She also recommended strategies to elicit reassurance that the patient has understood what was communicated. Not least, she recommended a “show me” approach in which a patient can repeat or demonstrate what he or she has learned.

Citing evidence that poor and incomplete translation contributes to medical errors and patient dissatisfaction, Dr. Chen reiterated that engaging unbiased trained translators is advisable for good clinical care even if it were not mandated by law.

NEW YORK – Clinicians should resist the temptation to use untrained interpreters, such as a child, another relative, or their own limited language skills, when treating patients who cannot communicate in English, according to an expert reviewing this issue at the American Academy of Dermatology summer meeting.

In clinical encounters with patients who have limited English proficiency, “it is both our legal and our ethical responsibility to communicate through qualified interpreters,” reported Amy Y.Y. Chen, MD, who is affiliated with Central Connecticut Dermatology in Canton.

In many situations, interpreter services are required by law. This includes a provision of the 1963 Civil Rights Act that specifies these services should be made available to any individual with limited English proficiency receiving federal financial assistance (with the exception of Medicare Part B).

In reviewing this and other laws, Dr. Chen explained that many prohibitions are explicit. For example, it is against the law for clinicians to communicate with the patient through children, whether or not they are related to the patient. A patient’s adult companions are also prohibited from interpreting unless the patient has provided express permission.

Despite the rules, some clinicians might be tempted to forgo a translator when none is readily available, opting for an improvised solution. Dr. Chen said that this is ill advised even when it is not illegal.

“There are a lot of potential problems with using nonprofessional interpreters, starting with the issue of confidentiality,” Dr. Chen warned.

As defined by the Department of Health & Human Services, a qualified interpreter establishes competency by developing familiarity with specialized terminology; by communicating accurately, effectively, and impartially; and by recognizing the ethical issues, including confidentiality, essential to their role.

By itself, language fluency might not be sufficient. Many physicians have conversational fluency in one or more languages other than English, but Dr. Chen pointed out that complex and nuanced clinical descriptions might be difficult to follow for a nonnative speaker. Moreover, many individuals who have no problem posing questions in a foreign language don’t do nearly as well in following the answers.

As interpreters, family members can be particularly problematic. In addition to the issues of confidentiality and medical terminology, a family member might have his or her own agenda that influences how questions and answers are conveyed.

Moreover, family members and others untrained in translating might edit answers based on their own sense of relevance. Many clinicians working through an interpreter will recognize the experience of receiving a yes or no answer after a lengthy discussion between a nontrained interpreter and patient. In such situations, the clinician can reasonably worry that important information was lost.

Typically, major hospitals already offer a systematic approach to providing interpreters when needed, but physicians working in private practice or other smaller practice settings might not. According to Dr. Chen, who recently collaborated on review of this issue (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Mar;80:829-31), they should.

Interpreter services are available by telephone or Internet. Fees typically fall in the range of $2-$5 per minute. In offices with bilingual staff members, formal medical interpreter training might make sense. The Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters and the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters can help in this process.

When using a medical interpreter, Dr. Chen had some tips.

“Maintain eye contact and talk to the patient,” said Dr. Chen, suggesting that the interpreter, if present in the room, be seated next to or behind the patient. Whether the interpreter is in the room or participating remotely, Dr. Chen advised against speaking through the interpreter with such phases as “tell her that.” Rather, she advised speaking directly to the patient with the interpreter providing the translation.

More practically, Dr. Chen recommended speaking slowly and posing only one question at a time. She also recommended strategies to elicit reassurance that the patient has understood what was communicated. Not least, she recommended a “show me” approach in which a patient can repeat or demonstrate what he or she has learned.

Citing evidence that poor and incomplete translation contributes to medical errors and patient dissatisfaction, Dr. Chen reiterated that engaging unbiased trained translators is advisable for good clinical care even if it were not mandated by law.

NEW YORK – Clinicians should resist the temptation to use untrained interpreters, such as a child, another relative, or their own limited language skills, when treating patients who cannot communicate in English, according to an expert reviewing this issue at the American Academy of Dermatology summer meeting.

In clinical encounters with patients who have limited English proficiency, “it is both our legal and our ethical responsibility to communicate through qualified interpreters,” reported Amy Y.Y. Chen, MD, who is affiliated with Central Connecticut Dermatology in Canton.

In many situations, interpreter services are required by law. This includes a provision of the 1963 Civil Rights Act that specifies these services should be made available to any individual with limited English proficiency receiving federal financial assistance (with the exception of Medicare Part B).

In reviewing this and other laws, Dr. Chen explained that many prohibitions are explicit. For example, it is against the law for clinicians to communicate with the patient through children, whether or not they are related to the patient. A patient’s adult companions are also prohibited from interpreting unless the patient has provided express permission.

Despite the rules, some clinicians might be tempted to forgo a translator when none is readily available, opting for an improvised solution. Dr. Chen said that this is ill advised even when it is not illegal.

“There are a lot of potential problems with using nonprofessional interpreters, starting with the issue of confidentiality,” Dr. Chen warned.

As defined by the Department of Health & Human Services, a qualified interpreter establishes competency by developing familiarity with specialized terminology; by communicating accurately, effectively, and impartially; and by recognizing the ethical issues, including confidentiality, essential to their role.

By itself, language fluency might not be sufficient. Many physicians have conversational fluency in one or more languages other than English, but Dr. Chen pointed out that complex and nuanced clinical descriptions might be difficult to follow for a nonnative speaker. Moreover, many individuals who have no problem posing questions in a foreign language don’t do nearly as well in following the answers.

As interpreters, family members can be particularly problematic. In addition to the issues of confidentiality and medical terminology, a family member might have his or her own agenda that influences how questions and answers are conveyed.

Moreover, family members and others untrained in translating might edit answers based on their own sense of relevance. Many clinicians working through an interpreter will recognize the experience of receiving a yes or no answer after a lengthy discussion between a nontrained interpreter and patient. In such situations, the clinician can reasonably worry that important information was lost.

Typically, major hospitals already offer a systematic approach to providing interpreters when needed, but physicians working in private practice or other smaller practice settings might not. According to Dr. Chen, who recently collaborated on review of this issue (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Mar;80:829-31), they should.

Interpreter services are available by telephone or Internet. Fees typically fall in the range of $2-$5 per minute. In offices with bilingual staff members, formal medical interpreter training might make sense. The Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters and the National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters can help in this process.

When using a medical interpreter, Dr. Chen had some tips.

“Maintain eye contact and talk to the patient,” said Dr. Chen, suggesting that the interpreter, if present in the room, be seated next to or behind the patient. Whether the interpreter is in the room or participating remotely, Dr. Chen advised against speaking through the interpreter with such phases as “tell her that.” Rather, she advised speaking directly to the patient with the interpreter providing the translation.

More practically, Dr. Chen recommended speaking slowly and posing only one question at a time. She also recommended strategies to elicit reassurance that the patient has understood what was communicated. Not least, she recommended a “show me” approach in which a patient can repeat or demonstrate what he or she has learned.

Citing evidence that poor and incomplete translation contributes to medical errors and patient dissatisfaction, Dr. Chen reiterated that engaging unbiased trained translators is advisable for good clinical care even if it were not mandated by law.

For patients, including patients who are physicians, knowledge isn’t power, according to investigators.

megaflopp/Thinkstock

A literature review and retrospective analysis of more than 35,000 physicians treated as patients revealed minimal associations between level of medical knowledge and quality of health outcomes, reported Michael D. Frakes, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. The study findings stand in opposition to the “widely prevailing view” that information and medical knowledge among patients are integral to realizing high-quality, low-cost health care, the investigators noted.

“[This] research is particularly relevant to modern discussions and debates about the consumer-driven health care movement and the use of plans with high deductibles and high copayments to encourage greater patient and consumer involvement in health care decision making,” Dr. Frakes said in an interview. “Recent research has suggested that the financial incentives created by such structures discourage the use of both low-value care and high-value care. Some have argued that greater disclosure of information to patients may address this concern and steer patients towards high-value decisions. Our results cast doubt on the potential for information initiatives alone to meet this aim.”

The study is one of the first of its kind, the investigators noted in the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. Other than a 2016 publication that found that physician mothers were less likely to have cesarean sections (Am Econ J: Econ Policy. 2016;8[1]:115-41), “there is no work which has been able to study the role of physicians as patients,” they wrote.

To fill this gap, the investigators turned to a unique data source: The Military Health System, which provides insurance to active and retired military personnel and their families. Military Health System spending exceeds $50 billion per year, constituting a major portion of American health care expenditures, and with more than 35,000 military physicians treated as patients, the dataset is highly relevant and powerful. The investigators objectively evaluated health outcomes by focusing on evidence-based, measurable clinical decisions deemed “high value” or “low value,” comparing how the frequency of these choices related with physician versus nonphysician patient status.

Coauthor Jonathan Gruber, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., explained this methodology in an interview. “The literature is clear that high-value care has positive health outcomes with relatively small increases in health care spending, and that low-value care has no impact on health outcomes with large increases in spending.”

“One concern with this analysis, of course, is that physicians may be of different health statuses and have different tastes for medical interventions than nonphysicians,” the investigators wrote. They addressed this problem in five ways, by focusing on widely accepted medical standards that apply to all patients; examining both high- and low-value care to eliminate one-sided bias; controlling for underlying health differences across groups; comparing physicians with other military officers to account for underlying tastes; and evaluating military officer dependents in comparison with physician dependents, the latter of whom may benefit from medical knowledge by virtue of personal relationship.

“Our results suggest that physicians do only slightly better than nonphysicians,” the investigators wrote, “but not by much and not always.” Low-value care was slightly less common among physicians, but this difference was described as “modest.” Analysis of high-value care was more mixed, with some results supporting equivalence between groups and others pointing to a slightly higher rate of high-value care among physician patients.

“These results provide a rough boundary on the extent to which additional information disclosure [beyond prevailing levels] can be expected to improve the delivery of health care in the U.S.,” the investigators wrote. “[M]ost of the explanation behind the over- and underutilization of low- and high-value services likely arises from factors other than informational deficiencies of patients.”

“Perhaps one interpretation of these findings is that patients remain generally deferential to the care recommendations of their treating physicians, even in the case of near fully informed patients,” the investigators wrote, noting that this interpretation aligns with a recent working paper that found that physicians play a greater role in selecting the site of MRI scans than patient cost-sharing factors.

Looking to the future, Dr. Gruber said that he and his colleagues plan on exploring “what drives this lack of response among physicians [as patients].”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Frakes MD et al. Natl Bur Econ Res. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.3386/w26038.

This article was updated 8/6/19.

For patients, including patients who are physicians, knowledge isn’t power, according to investigators.

megaflopp/Thinkstock

A literature review and retrospective analysis of more than 35,000 physicians treated as patients revealed minimal associations between level of medical knowledge and quality of health outcomes, reported Michael D. Frakes, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. The study findings stand in opposition to the “widely prevailing view” that information and medical knowledge among patients are integral to realizing high-quality, low-cost health care, the investigators noted.

“[This] research is particularly relevant to modern discussions and debates about the consumer-driven health care movement and the use of plans with high deductibles and high copayments to encourage greater patient and consumer involvement in health care decision making,” Dr. Frakes said in an interview. “Recent research has suggested that the financial incentives created by such structures discourage the use of both low-value care and high-value care. Some have argued that greater disclosure of information to patients may address this concern and steer patients towards high-value decisions. Our results cast doubt on the potential for information initiatives alone to meet this aim.”

The study is one of the first of its kind, the investigators noted in the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. Other than a 2016 publication that found that physician mothers were less likely to have cesarean sections (Am Econ J: Econ Policy. 2016;8[1]:115-41), “there is no work which has been able to study the role of physicians as patients,” they wrote.

To fill this gap, the investigators turned to a unique data source: The Military Health System, which provides insurance to active and retired military personnel and their families. Military Health System spending exceeds $50 billion per year, constituting a major portion of American health care expenditures, and with more than 35,000 military physicians treated as patients, the dataset is highly relevant and powerful. The investigators objectively evaluated health outcomes by focusing on evidence-based, measurable clinical decisions deemed “high value” or “low value,” comparing how the frequency of these choices related with physician versus nonphysician patient status.

Coauthor Jonathan Gruber, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., explained this methodology in an interview. “The literature is clear that high-value care has positive health outcomes with relatively small increases in health care spending, and that low-value care has no impact on health outcomes with large increases in spending.”

“One concern with this analysis, of course, is that physicians may be of different health statuses and have different tastes for medical interventions than nonphysicians,” the investigators wrote. They addressed this problem in five ways, by focusing on widely accepted medical standards that apply to all patients; examining both high- and low-value care to eliminate one-sided bias; controlling for underlying health differences across groups; comparing physicians with other military officers to account for underlying tastes; and evaluating military officer dependents in comparison with physician dependents, the latter of whom may benefit from medical knowledge by virtue of personal relationship.

“Our results suggest that physicians do only slightly better than nonphysicians,” the investigators wrote, “but not by much and not always.” Low-value care was slightly less common among physicians, but this difference was described as “modest.” Analysis of high-value care was more mixed, with some results supporting equivalence between groups and others pointing to a slightly higher rate of high-value care among physician patients.

“These results provide a rough boundary on the extent to which additional information disclosure [beyond prevailing levels] can be expected to improve the delivery of health care in the U.S.,” the investigators wrote. “[M]ost of the explanation behind the over- and underutilization of low- and high-value services likely arises from factors other than informational deficiencies of patients.”

“Perhaps one interpretation of these findings is that patients remain generally deferential to the care recommendations of their treating physicians, even in the case of near fully informed patients,” the investigators wrote, noting that this interpretation aligns with a recent working paper that found that physicians play a greater role in selecting the site of MRI scans than patient cost-sharing factors.

Looking to the future, Dr. Gruber said that he and his colleagues plan on exploring “what drives this lack of response among physicians [as patients].”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Frakes MD et al. Natl Bur Econ Res. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.3386/w26038.

This article was updated 8/6/19.

For patients, including patients who are physicians, knowledge isn’t power, according to investigators.

megaflopp/Thinkstock

A literature review and retrospective analysis of more than 35,000 physicians treated as patients revealed minimal associations between level of medical knowledge and quality of health outcomes, reported Michael D. Frakes, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. The study findings stand in opposition to the “widely prevailing view” that information and medical knowledge among patients are integral to realizing high-quality, low-cost health care, the investigators noted.

“[This] research is particularly relevant to modern discussions and debates about the consumer-driven health care movement and the use of plans with high deductibles and high copayments to encourage greater patient and consumer involvement in health care decision making,” Dr. Frakes said in an interview. “Recent research has suggested that the financial incentives created by such structures discourage the use of both low-value care and high-value care. Some have argued that greater disclosure of information to patients may address this concern and steer patients towards high-value decisions. Our results cast doubt on the potential for information initiatives alone to meet this aim.”

The study is one of the first of its kind, the investigators noted in the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. Other than a 2016 publication that found that physician mothers were less likely to have cesarean sections (Am Econ J: Econ Policy. 2016;8[1]:115-41), “there is no work which has been able to study the role of physicians as patients,” they wrote.

To fill this gap, the investigators turned to a unique data source: The Military Health System, which provides insurance to active and retired military personnel and their families. Military Health System spending exceeds $50 billion per year, constituting a major portion of American health care expenditures, and with more than 35,000 military physicians treated as patients, the dataset is highly relevant and powerful. The investigators objectively evaluated health outcomes by focusing on evidence-based, measurable clinical decisions deemed “high value” or “low value,” comparing how the frequency of these choices related with physician versus nonphysician patient status.

Coauthor Jonathan Gruber, PhD, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., explained this methodology in an interview. “The literature is clear that high-value care has positive health outcomes with relatively small increases in health care spending, and that low-value care has no impact on health outcomes with large increases in spending.”

“One concern with this analysis, of course, is that physicians may be of different health statuses and have different tastes for medical interventions than nonphysicians,” the investigators wrote. They addressed this problem in five ways, by focusing on widely accepted medical standards that apply to all patients; examining both high- and low-value care to eliminate one-sided bias; controlling for underlying health differences across groups; comparing physicians with other military officers to account for underlying tastes; and evaluating military officer dependents in comparison with physician dependents, the latter of whom may benefit from medical knowledge by virtue of personal relationship.

“Our results suggest that physicians do only slightly better than nonphysicians,” the investigators wrote, “but not by much and not always.” Low-value care was slightly less common among physicians, but this difference was described as “modest.” Analysis of high-value care was more mixed, with some results supporting equivalence between groups and others pointing to a slightly higher rate of high-value care among physician patients.

“These results provide a rough boundary on the extent to which additional information disclosure [beyond prevailing levels] can be expected to improve the delivery of health care in the U.S.,” the investigators wrote. “[M]ost of the explanation behind the over- and underutilization of low- and high-value services likely arises from factors other than informational deficiencies of patients.”

“Perhaps one interpretation of these findings is that patients remain generally deferential to the care recommendations of their treating physicians, even in the case of near fully informed patients,” the investigators wrote, noting that this interpretation aligns with a recent working paper that found that physicians play a greater role in selecting the site of MRI scans than patient cost-sharing factors.

Looking to the future, Dr. Gruber said that he and his colleagues plan on exploring “what drives this lack of response among physicians [as patients].”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Frakes MD et al. Natl Bur Econ Res. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.3386/w26038.

This article was updated 8/6/19.

Clinical question: In patients with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder, how frequently are prescription NSAIDs dispensed and are there associated short-term (between 7-38 days of visit) safety-related outcomes?

Background: Multiple expert panels recommend against the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events and renal injury with long-term NSAID use.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Population-based administrative claims database identified primary care visits in Ontario.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: In patients with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder, how frequently are prescription NSAIDs dispensed and are there associated short-term (between 7-38 days of visit) safety-related outcomes?

Background: Multiple expert panels recommend against the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events and renal injury with long-term NSAID use.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Population-based administrative claims database identified primary care visits in Ontario.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: In patients with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder, how frequently are prescription NSAIDs dispensed and are there associated short-term (between 7-38 days of visit) safety-related outcomes?

Background: Multiple expert panels recommend against the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events and renal injury with long-term NSAID use.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Population-based administrative claims database identified primary care visits in Ontario.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: DOACs have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, controlled trials, but these trials did not include high-risk patients. This trial studies the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and major bleeding.

Researchers then used three-way propensity matching, accounting for each morbidity category and anticoagulation medication to compare outcomes. Cox proportion regression models were used to adjust for risk and compare outcomes of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in matched participants in each anticoagulant group.

Primary outcomes of the study were ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage, which were determined based on ICD-9 codes. The investigators did not find a significant difference among anticoagulants regardless of the morbidity level for risk-adjusted ischemic stroke rates. Participants in the dabigatran group had lower rates of risk-adjusted major hemorrhage, compared with the warfarin group, regardless of morbidity category. The dabigatran group also had lower major hemorrhage risk, compared with the rivaroxaban group, especially in moderate- and high-morbidity category. Lastly, risk-adjusted rates of mortality were lower in the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups, compared with the warfarin group, and there was no difference between the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups with regards to mortality.

Bottom line: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are each equally effective, compared with warfarin, in preventing ischemic strokes in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and multiple comorbidities. However, patients on dabigatran appear to be at less risk of major bleeding, compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Citation: Mentias A et al. Assessment of outcomes of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 28;1(5):e182870.

Dr. Puri is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: DOACs have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, controlled trials, but these trials did not include high-risk patients. This trial studies the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and major bleeding.

Researchers then used three-way propensity matching, accounting for each morbidity category and anticoagulation medication to compare outcomes. Cox proportion regression models were used to adjust for risk and compare outcomes of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in matched participants in each anticoagulant group.

Primary outcomes of the study were ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage, which were determined based on ICD-9 codes. The investigators did not find a significant difference among anticoagulants regardless of the morbidity level for risk-adjusted ischemic stroke rates. Participants in the dabigatran group had lower rates of risk-adjusted major hemorrhage, compared with the warfarin group, regardless of morbidity category. The dabigatran group also had lower major hemorrhage risk, compared with the rivaroxaban group, especially in moderate- and high-morbidity category. Lastly, risk-adjusted rates of mortality were lower in the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups, compared with the warfarin group, and there was no difference between the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups with regards to mortality.

Bottom line: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are each equally effective, compared with warfarin, in preventing ischemic strokes in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and multiple comorbidities. However, patients on dabigatran appear to be at less risk of major bleeding, compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Citation: Mentias A et al. Assessment of outcomes of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 28;1(5):e182870.

Dr. Puri is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: DOACs have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, controlled trials, but these trials did not include high-risk patients. This trial studies the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and major bleeding.

Researchers then used three-way propensity matching, accounting for each morbidity category and anticoagulation medication to compare outcomes. Cox proportion regression models were used to adjust for risk and compare outcomes of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in matched participants in each anticoagulant group.

Primary outcomes of the study were ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage, which were determined based on ICD-9 codes. The investigators did not find a significant difference among anticoagulants regardless of the morbidity level for risk-adjusted ischemic stroke rates. Participants in the dabigatran group had lower rates of risk-adjusted major hemorrhage, compared with the warfarin group, regardless of morbidity category. The dabigatran group also had lower major hemorrhage risk, compared with the rivaroxaban group, especially in moderate- and high-morbidity category. Lastly, risk-adjusted rates of mortality were lower in the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups, compared with the warfarin group, and there was no difference between the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups with regards to mortality.

Bottom line: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are each equally effective, compared with warfarin, in preventing ischemic strokes in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and multiple comorbidities. However, patients on dabigatran appear to be at less risk of major bleeding, compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Citation: Mentias A et al. Assessment of outcomes of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 28;1(5):e182870.

Dr. Puri is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.