The Hospitalist

Although guideline recommended, treating children in shock with a bolus of saline or albumin fluid imposes counterproductive effects on respiratory and neurologic function, ultimately increasing risk of death, according to a detailed analysis of available data, including a randomized trial.

Several sets of guidelines for resuscitation of patients in shock have advocated volume expansion with bolus intravenous fluid, but that recommendation was based on expected physiologic benefits not a randomized trial. The only randomized trial associated this approach showed increased mortality, and a new analysis of these and other data appears to explain why.

According to the findings of a study lead by Michael Levin, MD, of the department of medicine at Imperial College London and colleagues, “volume resuscitation is associated with deterioration of respiratory function and neurological function in some patients.” Their study was published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The authors stated that saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis appears to have been “a major contributor” to the observed increase in adverse outcomes.

The key take home message is that “normal saline and other unbuffered crystalloid solutions should be avoided in resuscitating seriously ill patients,” according to the authors, who believe the findings might be relevant to adults as well as children.

The controversy about the role of volume expansion for management of shock was ignited by a 2011 trial called FEAST (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-95). That trial, which randomized African children with severe febrile illness to a bolus of 20-40 mg of 5% albumin solution, a bolus of 0.9% saline solution, or no bolus, was halted early when 48-hour mortality data showed a lower death rate in the no bolus group (7.3%) than either the albumin (10.6%) or saline (10.5%) bolus groups.

The FEAST result was unexpected and so contrary to accepted thinking that it prompted widespread debate, including whether findings in the resource-poor area of the world where the FEAST trial was conducted could be extrapolated to centers elsewhere in the world. Arguing for benefit, fluid resuscitation is known to increase pulse pressure and urinary output. Arguing against benefit, pulmonary edema is a known complication of bolus fluid replacement.

In an attempt to address and potentially resolve this controversy, data collected in the FEAST trial along with four other sets of data involving volume expansion in critically ill children were evaluated with a focus on changes in cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory function. Analysis of blood biochemistry and blood oxygen transport were also conducted.

The cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurologic functions were scored on the basis of objective measurements, such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. These measures were evaluated prior to fluid administration and at 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fluid administration. Odds ratio (OR) of an adverse outcome were evaluated in the context of each 10-unit change in these scores.

Relative to baseline, there was worsening respiratory and neurological function after fluid administration. Although cardiovascular function improved, hemoglobin concentrations were lower in those who received fluid than in those who did not. Fluid resuscitation was also associated with lower bicarbonate and increased base deficit and chloride at 24 hours.

Regression modeling with physiological variables suggests “that the increased mortality in FEAST can be explained by bolus-induced worsening in respiratory and neurological function, hemodilution, and hyperchloremic acidosis,” according to the authors.

Analyses of the four other sets of data, which included children treated for meningococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom, acutely ill with malaria treated in Malawi, and cohorts of children in South Africa and a London hospital for acute illnesses, provided supportive data.

Although this analysis does not address the value of administering buffered solutions in low volumes, the authors concluded that the data from the FEAST trial are generalizable. They challenge the routine use of bolus infusions of saline or albumin in the initial management of shock, which has been guideline recommended. The risks of fluid resuscitation might be particularly high among children who already have compromised respiratory or neurologic function.

SOURCE: Levin M et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:581-93.

Although guideline recommended, treating children in shock with a bolus of saline or albumin fluid imposes counterproductive effects on respiratory and neurologic function, ultimately increasing risk of death, according to a detailed analysis of available data, including a randomized trial.

Several sets of guidelines for resuscitation of patients in shock have advocated volume expansion with bolus intravenous fluid, but that recommendation was based on expected physiologic benefits not a randomized trial. The only randomized trial associated this approach showed increased mortality, and a new analysis of these and other data appears to explain why.

According to the findings of a study lead by Michael Levin, MD, of the department of medicine at Imperial College London and colleagues, “volume resuscitation is associated with deterioration of respiratory function and neurological function in some patients.” Their study was published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The authors stated that saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis appears to have been “a major contributor” to the observed increase in adverse outcomes.

The key take home message is that “normal saline and other unbuffered crystalloid solutions should be avoided in resuscitating seriously ill patients,” according to the authors, who believe the findings might be relevant to adults as well as children.

The controversy about the role of volume expansion for management of shock was ignited by a 2011 trial called FEAST (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-95). That trial, which randomized African children with severe febrile illness to a bolus of 20-40 mg of 5% albumin solution, a bolus of 0.9% saline solution, or no bolus, was halted early when 48-hour mortality data showed a lower death rate in the no bolus group (7.3%) than either the albumin (10.6%) or saline (10.5%) bolus groups.

The FEAST result was unexpected and so contrary to accepted thinking that it prompted widespread debate, including whether findings in the resource-poor area of the world where the FEAST trial was conducted could be extrapolated to centers elsewhere in the world. Arguing for benefit, fluid resuscitation is known to increase pulse pressure and urinary output. Arguing against benefit, pulmonary edema is a known complication of bolus fluid replacement.

In an attempt to address and potentially resolve this controversy, data collected in the FEAST trial along with four other sets of data involving volume expansion in critically ill children were evaluated with a focus on changes in cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory function. Analysis of blood biochemistry and blood oxygen transport were also conducted.

The cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurologic functions were scored on the basis of objective measurements, such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. These measures were evaluated prior to fluid administration and at 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fluid administration. Odds ratio (OR) of an adverse outcome were evaluated in the context of each 10-unit change in these scores.

Relative to baseline, there was worsening respiratory and neurological function after fluid administration. Although cardiovascular function improved, hemoglobin concentrations were lower in those who received fluid than in those who did not. Fluid resuscitation was also associated with lower bicarbonate and increased base deficit and chloride at 24 hours.

Regression modeling with physiological variables suggests “that the increased mortality in FEAST can be explained by bolus-induced worsening in respiratory and neurological function, hemodilution, and hyperchloremic acidosis,” according to the authors.

Analyses of the four other sets of data, which included children treated for meningococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom, acutely ill with malaria treated in Malawi, and cohorts of children in South Africa and a London hospital for acute illnesses, provided supportive data.

Although this analysis does not address the value of administering buffered solutions in low volumes, the authors concluded that the data from the FEAST trial are generalizable. They challenge the routine use of bolus infusions of saline or albumin in the initial management of shock, which has been guideline recommended. The risks of fluid resuscitation might be particularly high among children who already have compromised respiratory or neurologic function.

SOURCE: Levin M et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:581-93.

Although guideline recommended, treating children in shock with a bolus of saline or albumin fluid imposes counterproductive effects on respiratory and neurologic function, ultimately increasing risk of death, according to a detailed analysis of available data, including a randomized trial.

Several sets of guidelines for resuscitation of patients in shock have advocated volume expansion with bolus intravenous fluid, but that recommendation was based on expected physiologic benefits not a randomized trial. The only randomized trial associated this approach showed increased mortality, and a new analysis of these and other data appears to explain why.

According to the findings of a study lead by Michael Levin, MD, of the department of medicine at Imperial College London and colleagues, “volume resuscitation is associated with deterioration of respiratory function and neurological function in some patients.” Their study was published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The authors stated that saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis appears to have been “a major contributor” to the observed increase in adverse outcomes.

The key take home message is that “normal saline and other unbuffered crystalloid solutions should be avoided in resuscitating seriously ill patients,” according to the authors, who believe the findings might be relevant to adults as well as children.

The controversy about the role of volume expansion for management of shock was ignited by a 2011 trial called FEAST (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-95). That trial, which randomized African children with severe febrile illness to a bolus of 20-40 mg of 5% albumin solution, a bolus of 0.9% saline solution, or no bolus, was halted early when 48-hour mortality data showed a lower death rate in the no bolus group (7.3%) than either the albumin (10.6%) or saline (10.5%) bolus groups.

The FEAST result was unexpected and so contrary to accepted thinking that it prompted widespread debate, including whether findings in the resource-poor area of the world where the FEAST trial was conducted could be extrapolated to centers elsewhere in the world. Arguing for benefit, fluid resuscitation is known to increase pulse pressure and urinary output. Arguing against benefit, pulmonary edema is a known complication of bolus fluid replacement.

In an attempt to address and potentially resolve this controversy, data collected in the FEAST trial along with four other sets of data involving volume expansion in critically ill children were evaluated with a focus on changes in cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory function. Analysis of blood biochemistry and blood oxygen transport were also conducted.

The cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurologic functions were scored on the basis of objective measurements, such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. These measures were evaluated prior to fluid administration and at 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fluid administration. Odds ratio (OR) of an adverse outcome were evaluated in the context of each 10-unit change in these scores.

Relative to baseline, there was worsening respiratory and neurological function after fluid administration. Although cardiovascular function improved, hemoglobin concentrations were lower in those who received fluid than in those who did not. Fluid resuscitation was also associated with lower bicarbonate and increased base deficit and chloride at 24 hours.

Regression modeling with physiological variables suggests “that the increased mortality in FEAST can be explained by bolus-induced worsening in respiratory and neurological function, hemodilution, and hyperchloremic acidosis,” according to the authors.

Analyses of the four other sets of data, which included children treated for meningococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom, acutely ill with malaria treated in Malawi, and cohorts of children in South Africa and a London hospital for acute illnesses, provided supportive data.

Although this analysis does not address the value of administering buffered solutions in low volumes, the authors concluded that the data from the FEAST trial are generalizable. They challenge the routine use of bolus infusions of saline or albumin in the initial management of shock, which has been guideline recommended. The risks of fluid resuscitation might be particularly high among children who already have compromised respiratory or neurologic function.

SOURCE: Levin M et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:581-93.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in adults. Recarbrio is a three-drug combo injection containing imipenem/cilastatin, an antibiotic previously approved by the FDA, and relebactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

The efficacy of Recarbrio was supported by data on the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of cUTI and cIAI and by in vitro studies and animal models of infection with treatment by relebactam. The safety was assessed in a pair of clinical studies, one that assessed cUTI patients and another that assessed cIAI patients.

The most common adverse events reported were nausea, diarrhea, headache, fever, and increased liver enzymes. Treatment with Recarbrio is not recommended in patients taking ganciclovir, valproic acid, or divalproex sodium because there is an increased risk of seizures, according to the FDA.

“The FDA remains focused on facilitating the development of safe and effective new antibacterial drugs to give patients more options to fight serious infections. It is important that the use of Recarbrio be reserved for situations when there are limited or no alternative antibacterial drugs for treating a patient’s infection,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director for the Office of Antimicrobial Products in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in adults. Recarbrio is a three-drug combo injection containing imipenem/cilastatin, an antibiotic previously approved by the FDA, and relebactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

The efficacy of Recarbrio was supported by data on the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of cUTI and cIAI and by in vitro studies and animal models of infection with treatment by relebactam. The safety was assessed in a pair of clinical studies, one that assessed cUTI patients and another that assessed cIAI patients.

The most common adverse events reported were nausea, diarrhea, headache, fever, and increased liver enzymes. Treatment with Recarbrio is not recommended in patients taking ganciclovir, valproic acid, or divalproex sodium because there is an increased risk of seizures, according to the FDA.

“The FDA remains focused on facilitating the development of safe and effective new antibacterial drugs to give patients more options to fight serious infections. It is important that the use of Recarbrio be reserved for situations when there are limited or no alternative antibacterial drugs for treating a patient’s infection,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director for the Office of Antimicrobial Products in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in adults. Recarbrio is a three-drug combo injection containing imipenem/cilastatin, an antibiotic previously approved by the FDA, and relebactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

The efficacy of Recarbrio was supported by data on the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of cUTI and cIAI and by in vitro studies and animal models of infection with treatment by relebactam. The safety was assessed in a pair of clinical studies, one that assessed cUTI patients and another that assessed cIAI patients.

The most common adverse events reported were nausea, diarrhea, headache, fever, and increased liver enzymes. Treatment with Recarbrio is not recommended in patients taking ganciclovir, valproic acid, or divalproex sodium because there is an increased risk of seizures, according to the FDA.

“The FDA remains focused on facilitating the development of safe and effective new antibacterial drugs to give patients more options to fight serious infections. It is important that the use of Recarbrio be reserved for situations when there are limited or no alternative antibacterial drugs for treating a patient’s infection,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director for the Office of Antimicrobial Products in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Everyone always told me that my time in residency would fly by, and the 3 years of internal medicine training really did seem to pass in just a few moments. Before I knew it, I had passed my internal medicine boards and practiced hospital medicine at an academic medical center.

One day last fall, I received notice from the American Board of Internal Medicine that it was time to recertify. I was surprised – had it already been 10 years? What did I have to do to maintain my certification?

As I investigated what it would take to maintain certification, I discovered that the recertification process provided more flexibility, compared with original board certification. I now had the option to recertify in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM). Beginning in 2014, ABIM offered hospitalists, or internists whose clinical practice is mainly in the inpatient setting, the option to recertify in internal medicine, but with the designation that highlighted their clinical practice in the inpatient setting.

The first step in recertification for me was deciding to recertify with the focus in hospital medicine or maintain the traditional internal medicine certification. I talked with several colleagues who are also practicing hospitalists and weighed their reasons for opting for FPHM. Ultimately, my decision to pursue a recertification with a focus in hospital medicine relied on three factors: First, my clinical practice since completing residency was exclusively in the inpatient setting. Day in and day out, I care for patients who are acutely ill and require inpatient medical care. Second, I wanted my board certification to reflect what I consider to be my area of clinical expertise, which is inpatient adult medicine. Pursuing the FPHM would provide that recognition. Finally, I wanted to study and be tested on topics that I could utilize in my day-to-day practice. Because I exclusively practiced hospital medicine since graduation, areas of clinical internal medicine that I did not frequently encounter in my daily practice became less accessible in my knowledge base.

The next step then was to enter the FPHM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program.

The ABIM requires two attestations to verify that I met the requirements to be a hospitalist. First was a self-attestation confirming at least 3 years of unsupervised inpatient care practice experience, and meeting patient encounter thresholds in the inpatient setting. The second attestation was from a “Senior Hospital Officer” confirming the information in the self-attestation was accurate.

Once entered into the program and having an unrestricted medical license to practice, I had to complete the remaining requirements of earning MOC points and then passing a knowledge-based assessment. I had to accumulate a total of 100 MOC points in the past 5 years, which I succeeded in doing through participating in quality improvement projects, recording CME credits, studying for the exam, and even taking the exam. I could track my point totals through the ABIM Physician Portal, which updated my point tally automatically for activities that counted toward MOC, such as attending SHM’s annual conference.

The final component was to pass the knowledge assessment, the dreaded exam. In 2018, I had the option to take the 10-year FPHM exam or do a general internal medicine Knowledge Check-In. Beginning in 2020, candidates will be able to sit for either the 10-year Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine exam or begin the Hospital Medicine Knowledge Check-In pathway. I had already decided to pursue FPHM and began to prepare to sit for an exam. I scheduled my exam through the ABIM portal at a local testing center.

The exam was scheduled for a full day, consisting of four sections broken up by a lunch break and section breaks. Specifically, the 220 single best answer, multiple-choice exam covered diagnosis, testing, treatment decisions, epidemiology, and basic science content through patient scenarios that reflected the scope of practice of a hospitalist. The ABIM provided an exam blueprint that detailed the specific clinical topics and the likelihood that a question pertaining to that topic would show up on the exam. Content was described as high, medium, or low importance and the number of questions related to the content was 75% for high importance, no more than 25% for medium importance, and no questions for low-importance content. In addition, content was distributed in a way that was reflective of my clinical practice as a hospitalist: 63.5% inpatient and traditional care; 6.5% palliative care; 15% consultative comanagement; and 15% quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

Beginning 6 months prior to my scheduled exam, I purchased two critical resources to guide my studying efforts: the SHM Spark Self-Assessment Tool and the American College of Physicians Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program to review subject matter content and also do practice questions.

The latest version of SHM’s program, Spark Edition 2, provides updated questions and resources tailored to the hospital medicine exams. I appreciated the ability to answer questions online, as well as on my phone so I could do questions on the go. Moreover, I was able to track which content areas were stronger or weaker for me, and focus attention on areas that needed more work. Importantly, the questions I answered using the Spark self-assessment tool closely aligned with the subject matter I encountered in the exam, as well as the clinical cases I encounter every day in my practice.

While the day-long exam was challenging, I was gratified to receive notice from the ABIM that I had successfully recertified in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine!

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associate vice chair of quality in the department of medicine at the University of Colorado.

Everyone always told me that my time in residency would fly by, and the 3 years of internal medicine training really did seem to pass in just a few moments. Before I knew it, I had passed my internal medicine boards and practiced hospital medicine at an academic medical center.

One day last fall, I received notice from the American Board of Internal Medicine that it was time to recertify. I was surprised – had it already been 10 years? What did I have to do to maintain my certification?

As I investigated what it would take to maintain certification, I discovered that the recertification process provided more flexibility, compared with original board certification. I now had the option to recertify in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM). Beginning in 2014, ABIM offered hospitalists, or internists whose clinical practice is mainly in the inpatient setting, the option to recertify in internal medicine, but with the designation that highlighted their clinical practice in the inpatient setting.

The first step in recertification for me was deciding to recertify with the focus in hospital medicine or maintain the traditional internal medicine certification. I talked with several colleagues who are also practicing hospitalists and weighed their reasons for opting for FPHM. Ultimately, my decision to pursue a recertification with a focus in hospital medicine relied on three factors: First, my clinical practice since completing residency was exclusively in the inpatient setting. Day in and day out, I care for patients who are acutely ill and require inpatient medical care. Second, I wanted my board certification to reflect what I consider to be my area of clinical expertise, which is inpatient adult medicine. Pursuing the FPHM would provide that recognition. Finally, I wanted to study and be tested on topics that I could utilize in my day-to-day practice. Because I exclusively practiced hospital medicine since graduation, areas of clinical internal medicine that I did not frequently encounter in my daily practice became less accessible in my knowledge base.

The next step then was to enter the FPHM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program.

The ABIM requires two attestations to verify that I met the requirements to be a hospitalist. First was a self-attestation confirming at least 3 years of unsupervised inpatient care practice experience, and meeting patient encounter thresholds in the inpatient setting. The second attestation was from a “Senior Hospital Officer” confirming the information in the self-attestation was accurate.

Once entered into the program and having an unrestricted medical license to practice, I had to complete the remaining requirements of earning MOC points and then passing a knowledge-based assessment. I had to accumulate a total of 100 MOC points in the past 5 years, which I succeeded in doing through participating in quality improvement projects, recording CME credits, studying for the exam, and even taking the exam. I could track my point totals through the ABIM Physician Portal, which updated my point tally automatically for activities that counted toward MOC, such as attending SHM’s annual conference.

The final component was to pass the knowledge assessment, the dreaded exam. In 2018, I had the option to take the 10-year FPHM exam or do a general internal medicine Knowledge Check-In. Beginning in 2020, candidates will be able to sit for either the 10-year Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine exam or begin the Hospital Medicine Knowledge Check-In pathway. I had already decided to pursue FPHM and began to prepare to sit for an exam. I scheduled my exam through the ABIM portal at a local testing center.

The exam was scheduled for a full day, consisting of four sections broken up by a lunch break and section breaks. Specifically, the 220 single best answer, multiple-choice exam covered diagnosis, testing, treatment decisions, epidemiology, and basic science content through patient scenarios that reflected the scope of practice of a hospitalist. The ABIM provided an exam blueprint that detailed the specific clinical topics and the likelihood that a question pertaining to that topic would show up on the exam. Content was described as high, medium, or low importance and the number of questions related to the content was 75% for high importance, no more than 25% for medium importance, and no questions for low-importance content. In addition, content was distributed in a way that was reflective of my clinical practice as a hospitalist: 63.5% inpatient and traditional care; 6.5% palliative care; 15% consultative comanagement; and 15% quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

Beginning 6 months prior to my scheduled exam, I purchased two critical resources to guide my studying efforts: the SHM Spark Self-Assessment Tool and the American College of Physicians Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program to review subject matter content and also do practice questions.

The latest version of SHM’s program, Spark Edition 2, provides updated questions and resources tailored to the hospital medicine exams. I appreciated the ability to answer questions online, as well as on my phone so I could do questions on the go. Moreover, I was able to track which content areas were stronger or weaker for me, and focus attention on areas that needed more work. Importantly, the questions I answered using the Spark self-assessment tool closely aligned with the subject matter I encountered in the exam, as well as the clinical cases I encounter every day in my practice.

While the day-long exam was challenging, I was gratified to receive notice from the ABIM that I had successfully recertified in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine!

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associate vice chair of quality in the department of medicine at the University of Colorado.

Everyone always told me that my time in residency would fly by, and the 3 years of internal medicine training really did seem to pass in just a few moments. Before I knew it, I had passed my internal medicine boards and practiced hospital medicine at an academic medical center.

One day last fall, I received notice from the American Board of Internal Medicine that it was time to recertify. I was surprised – had it already been 10 years? What did I have to do to maintain my certification?

As I investigated what it would take to maintain certification, I discovered that the recertification process provided more flexibility, compared with original board certification. I now had the option to recertify in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM). Beginning in 2014, ABIM offered hospitalists, or internists whose clinical practice is mainly in the inpatient setting, the option to recertify in internal medicine, but with the designation that highlighted their clinical practice in the inpatient setting.

The first step in recertification for me was deciding to recertify with the focus in hospital medicine or maintain the traditional internal medicine certification. I talked with several colleagues who are also practicing hospitalists and weighed their reasons for opting for FPHM. Ultimately, my decision to pursue a recertification with a focus in hospital medicine relied on three factors: First, my clinical practice since completing residency was exclusively in the inpatient setting. Day in and day out, I care for patients who are acutely ill and require inpatient medical care. Second, I wanted my board certification to reflect what I consider to be my area of clinical expertise, which is inpatient adult medicine. Pursuing the FPHM would provide that recognition. Finally, I wanted to study and be tested on topics that I could utilize in my day-to-day practice. Because I exclusively practiced hospital medicine since graduation, areas of clinical internal medicine that I did not frequently encounter in my daily practice became less accessible in my knowledge base.

The next step then was to enter the FPHM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program.

The ABIM requires two attestations to verify that I met the requirements to be a hospitalist. First was a self-attestation confirming at least 3 years of unsupervised inpatient care practice experience, and meeting patient encounter thresholds in the inpatient setting. The second attestation was from a “Senior Hospital Officer” confirming the information in the self-attestation was accurate.

Once entered into the program and having an unrestricted medical license to practice, I had to complete the remaining requirements of earning MOC points and then passing a knowledge-based assessment. I had to accumulate a total of 100 MOC points in the past 5 years, which I succeeded in doing through participating in quality improvement projects, recording CME credits, studying for the exam, and even taking the exam. I could track my point totals through the ABIM Physician Portal, which updated my point tally automatically for activities that counted toward MOC, such as attending SHM’s annual conference.

The final component was to pass the knowledge assessment, the dreaded exam. In 2018, I had the option to take the 10-year FPHM exam or do a general internal medicine Knowledge Check-In. Beginning in 2020, candidates will be able to sit for either the 10-year Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine exam or begin the Hospital Medicine Knowledge Check-In pathway. I had already decided to pursue FPHM and began to prepare to sit for an exam. I scheduled my exam through the ABIM portal at a local testing center.

The exam was scheduled for a full day, consisting of four sections broken up by a lunch break and section breaks. Specifically, the 220 single best answer, multiple-choice exam covered diagnosis, testing, treatment decisions, epidemiology, and basic science content through patient scenarios that reflected the scope of practice of a hospitalist. The ABIM provided an exam blueprint that detailed the specific clinical topics and the likelihood that a question pertaining to that topic would show up on the exam. Content was described as high, medium, or low importance and the number of questions related to the content was 75% for high importance, no more than 25% for medium importance, and no questions for low-importance content. In addition, content was distributed in a way that was reflective of my clinical practice as a hospitalist: 63.5% inpatient and traditional care; 6.5% palliative care; 15% consultative comanagement; and 15% quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

Beginning 6 months prior to my scheduled exam, I purchased two critical resources to guide my studying efforts: the SHM Spark Self-Assessment Tool and the American College of Physicians Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program to review subject matter content and also do practice questions.

The latest version of SHM’s program, Spark Edition 2, provides updated questions and resources tailored to the hospital medicine exams. I appreciated the ability to answer questions online, as well as on my phone so I could do questions on the go. Moreover, I was able to track which content areas were stronger or weaker for me, and focus attention on areas that needed more work. Importantly, the questions I answered using the Spark self-assessment tool closely aligned with the subject matter I encountered in the exam, as well as the clinical cases I encounter every day in my practice.

While the day-long exam was challenging, I was gratified to receive notice from the ABIM that I had successfully recertified in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine!

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associate vice chair of quality in the department of medicine at the University of Colorado.

Physician employment contracts increasingly include value- and quality-based metrics as bases for production bonuses, according to an analysis of recruitment searches from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

Metrics such as physician satisfaction rates, proper use of EHRs, following treatment protocols, and others that don’t directly measure volume are becoming more commonplace in employment contracts, though volume measures still are included, according to Phil Miller, vice president of communications at health care recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins and author of the company’s 2019 report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives, released July 8.

Of 70% of searches that offered a production bonus, 56% featured a bonus based at least in part on quality metrics, up from 43% in 2018. The finding represents the highest percent of contracts offering a quality-based bonus that the company has tracked, according to the report.

Merritt Hawkins’ review is based on a sample of the 3,131 permanent physician and advanced practitioner search assignments that Merritt Hawkins and its sister physician staffing companies at AMN Healthcare have ongoing or were engaged to conduct from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Other common value-based metrics include reduction in hospital readmissions, cost containment, and proper coding.

While value-based incentives are on the rise, “facilities that employ physicians want to ensure they stay productive, and ‘productivity’ still is measured in part by what are essentially fee-for-service metrics, including relative value units [RVUs], net collections, and number of patients seen.”

RVUs were used in 70% of production formulas tracked in the 2019 review, up from 50% in the previous year and also a record high.

Mr. Miller noted that employers are seeking the “Goldilocks’ zone,” a balance point between traditional productivity measures and value-based metrics, very much a work in progress right now.

A possible corollary to the increase in production bonuses is a flattening of signing bonuses. During the current review period, 71% of contracts came with a signing bonus, up slightly from 70% in the previous year’s report and down from 76% 2 years ago.

Signing bonuses in the review period for the 2019 report averaged $32,692, down from $33,707 during the 2018 report’s review period.

Overall, family practice physicians remain the highest in demand for job searches, but specialty practice is gaining ground.

For the 2018-2019 review, family medicine was the most requested search by specialty, with 457 searches requested. While the ranking remains No. 1, as it has for the past 13 years, the number of searches has been on a steady decline. Last year, there were 497 searches, which was down from 607 2 years ago and 734 4 years ago.

Mr. Miller said there were a few reasons for the lower number of searches. “One is just the momentum shifts that are kind of inherent to recruiting. People put all of their resources into one area, typically, and in this case it was primary care and they realized, ‘Hey wait a minute, we need some specialists for these doctors to refer to, so now we have to put some of our chips in the specialty basket.’ ”

The Baby Boomers also is having an effect – as they age and are experiencing more health issues, more specialists are needed.

“[Older patients] visit the doctor twice or three times the rate of a younger person and they also generate a much higher percentage of inpatient procedures and tests and diagnoses,” he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, “younger people are less likely to have a primary care doctor who coordinates their care,” Mr. Miller said. “What they typically do is go to an urgent care center, a retail clinic, maybe even [use] telemedicine so they are not accessing the system in the same way or necessarily through the same provider.”

Demand for psychiatrists remained strong for the fourth year in a row, but the number of searches has declined for the last several years. For the current review period, there were 199 searches, down from 243 the previous year, 256 2 years ago, and 250 3 years ago.

There is “pretty much a crisis in behavioral health care now because there are so few psychiatrists and the demand has increased,” Mr. Miller noted.

[email protected]

Physician employment contracts increasingly include value- and quality-based metrics as bases for production bonuses, according to an analysis of recruitment searches from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

Metrics such as physician satisfaction rates, proper use of EHRs, following treatment protocols, and others that don’t directly measure volume are becoming more commonplace in employment contracts, though volume measures still are included, according to Phil Miller, vice president of communications at health care recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins and author of the company’s 2019 report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives, released July 8.

Of 70% of searches that offered a production bonus, 56% featured a bonus based at least in part on quality metrics, up from 43% in 2018. The finding represents the highest percent of contracts offering a quality-based bonus that the company has tracked, according to the report.

Merritt Hawkins’ review is based on a sample of the 3,131 permanent physician and advanced practitioner search assignments that Merritt Hawkins and its sister physician staffing companies at AMN Healthcare have ongoing or were engaged to conduct from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Other common value-based metrics include reduction in hospital readmissions, cost containment, and proper coding.

While value-based incentives are on the rise, “facilities that employ physicians want to ensure they stay productive, and ‘productivity’ still is measured in part by what are essentially fee-for-service metrics, including relative value units [RVUs], net collections, and number of patients seen.”

RVUs were used in 70% of production formulas tracked in the 2019 review, up from 50% in the previous year and also a record high.

Mr. Miller noted that employers are seeking the “Goldilocks’ zone,” a balance point between traditional productivity measures and value-based metrics, very much a work in progress right now.

A possible corollary to the increase in production bonuses is a flattening of signing bonuses. During the current review period, 71% of contracts came with a signing bonus, up slightly from 70% in the previous year’s report and down from 76% 2 years ago.

Signing bonuses in the review period for the 2019 report averaged $32,692, down from $33,707 during the 2018 report’s review period.

Overall, family practice physicians remain the highest in demand for job searches, but specialty practice is gaining ground.

For the 2018-2019 review, family medicine was the most requested search by specialty, with 457 searches requested. While the ranking remains No. 1, as it has for the past 13 years, the number of searches has been on a steady decline. Last year, there were 497 searches, which was down from 607 2 years ago and 734 4 years ago.

Mr. Miller said there were a few reasons for the lower number of searches. “One is just the momentum shifts that are kind of inherent to recruiting. People put all of their resources into one area, typically, and in this case it was primary care and they realized, ‘Hey wait a minute, we need some specialists for these doctors to refer to, so now we have to put some of our chips in the specialty basket.’ ”

The Baby Boomers also is having an effect – as they age and are experiencing more health issues, more specialists are needed.

“[Older patients] visit the doctor twice or three times the rate of a younger person and they also generate a much higher percentage of inpatient procedures and tests and diagnoses,” he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, “younger people are less likely to have a primary care doctor who coordinates their care,” Mr. Miller said. “What they typically do is go to an urgent care center, a retail clinic, maybe even [use] telemedicine so they are not accessing the system in the same way or necessarily through the same provider.”

Demand for psychiatrists remained strong for the fourth year in a row, but the number of searches has declined for the last several years. For the current review period, there were 199 searches, down from 243 the previous year, 256 2 years ago, and 250 3 years ago.

There is “pretty much a crisis in behavioral health care now because there are so few psychiatrists and the demand has increased,” Mr. Miller noted.

[email protected]

Physician employment contracts increasingly include value- and quality-based metrics as bases for production bonuses, according to an analysis of recruitment searches from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

Metrics such as physician satisfaction rates, proper use of EHRs, following treatment protocols, and others that don’t directly measure volume are becoming more commonplace in employment contracts, though volume measures still are included, according to Phil Miller, vice president of communications at health care recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins and author of the company’s 2019 report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives, released July 8.

Of 70% of searches that offered a production bonus, 56% featured a bonus based at least in part on quality metrics, up from 43% in 2018. The finding represents the highest percent of contracts offering a quality-based bonus that the company has tracked, according to the report.

Merritt Hawkins’ review is based on a sample of the 3,131 permanent physician and advanced practitioner search assignments that Merritt Hawkins and its sister physician staffing companies at AMN Healthcare have ongoing or were engaged to conduct from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Other common value-based metrics include reduction in hospital readmissions, cost containment, and proper coding.

While value-based incentives are on the rise, “facilities that employ physicians want to ensure they stay productive, and ‘productivity’ still is measured in part by what are essentially fee-for-service metrics, including relative value units [RVUs], net collections, and number of patients seen.”

RVUs were used in 70% of production formulas tracked in the 2019 review, up from 50% in the previous year and also a record high.

Mr. Miller noted that employers are seeking the “Goldilocks’ zone,” a balance point between traditional productivity measures and value-based metrics, very much a work in progress right now.

A possible corollary to the increase in production bonuses is a flattening of signing bonuses. During the current review period, 71% of contracts came with a signing bonus, up slightly from 70% in the previous year’s report and down from 76% 2 years ago.

Signing bonuses in the review period for the 2019 report averaged $32,692, down from $33,707 during the 2018 report’s review period.

Overall, family practice physicians remain the highest in demand for job searches, but specialty practice is gaining ground.

For the 2018-2019 review, family medicine was the most requested search by specialty, with 457 searches requested. While the ranking remains No. 1, as it has for the past 13 years, the number of searches has been on a steady decline. Last year, there were 497 searches, which was down from 607 2 years ago and 734 4 years ago.

Mr. Miller said there were a few reasons for the lower number of searches. “One is just the momentum shifts that are kind of inherent to recruiting. People put all of their resources into one area, typically, and in this case it was primary care and they realized, ‘Hey wait a minute, we need some specialists for these doctors to refer to, so now we have to put some of our chips in the specialty basket.’ ”

The Baby Boomers also is having an effect – as they age and are experiencing more health issues, more specialists are needed.

“[Older patients] visit the doctor twice or three times the rate of a younger person and they also generate a much higher percentage of inpatient procedures and tests and diagnoses,” he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, “younger people are less likely to have a primary care doctor who coordinates their care,” Mr. Miller said. “What they typically do is go to an urgent care center, a retail clinic, maybe even [use] telemedicine so they are not accessing the system in the same way or necessarily through the same provider.”

Demand for psychiatrists remained strong for the fourth year in a row, but the number of searches has declined for the last several years. For the current review period, there were 199 searches, down from 243 the previous year, 256 2 years ago, and 250 3 years ago.

There is “pretty much a crisis in behavioral health care now because there are so few psychiatrists and the demand has increased,” Mr. Miller noted.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

A third of medical malpractice cases associated with patient death or permanent disability result from diagnostic errors by health providers, an analysis finds.

Lead investigator David E. Newman-Toker, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed malpractice claims during 2006-2015 from medical liability insurer CRICO’s Comparative Benchmarking System database, which represents 30% of all malpractice claims in the United States.

Investigators sought to identify diseases accounting for the majority of serious diagnosis-related harms associated with the claims. Of 55,377 closed claims, researchers identified 11,592 diagnostic error cases, of which 7,379 resulted in high-severity harm.

Of the high-severity claims, 34% stemmed from inaccurate or delayed diagnosis (Diagnosis 2019 Jul 11. doi. org/10.1515/dx-2019-0019).

The majority of diagnostic mistakes (74%) causing the most severe harm were attributable to cancer (38%), vascular events (23%), and infection (14%). These cases resulted in nearly $2 billion in malpractice payouts over a 10-year period, investigators found.

Clinical judgment factors were the primary reason behind the alleged errors, specifically: failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test, narrow diagnostic focus with failure to establish a differential diagnosis, failure to appreciate and reconcile relevant symptoms or test results, and failure or delay in obtaining consultation or referral and misinterpretation of diagnostic studies.

“Diagnostic errors are the most common, the most catastrophic, and the most costly of medical errors,” Dr. Newman-Toker said at a press conference July 11. “We know that this is a major problem, at an individual, personal level, but also at a societal level and something we really have to take action toward fixing.”

This study breaks new ground by drilling into the major diseases most commonly associated with diagnostic errors, Dr. Newman-Toker said. In the cancer category, the most common cancers linked to severe harm were lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma. In the vascular category, the most common conditions were stroke; myocardial infarction; venous thromboembolism; aortic aneurysm and dissection; and arterial thromboembolism. In the area of infection, sepsis; meningitis and encephalitis; spinal abscess; pneumonia; and endocarditis were the most common infections identified.

The findings provide a starting point to make improvements in the area of medical errors, said Dr. Newman-Toker, president of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, an organization that aims to improve diagnosis and eliminate harm from diagnostic error.

“Although diagnostic errors happen everywhere, across all of medicine in every discipline with every disease, we might be able to take a big chunk out of this problem if we save a lot of lives and prevent a lot disability and if we focus some energy on tackling these problems,” he said. “It at least gives us a starting place and a roadmap for how to move the ball forward in this regard.”

The Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine has called on Congress to invest more funding into research to address diagnostic errors. Society CEO and cofounder Paul L. Epner noted that the 2019 House appropriations bill proposes not less than $4 million for diagnostic safety and quality research, which is up from $2 million last year.

“It’s a small step, but in the right direction,” Mr. Epner said. “[However,] the federal investment in research remains trivially small in relation to the public burden. That’s why we urge Congress to commit to research funding levels proportionate to the societal cost, in both human lives and in dollars.”

[email protected]
 

A third of medical malpractice cases associated with patient death or permanent disability result from diagnostic errors by health providers, an analysis finds.

Lead investigator David E. Newman-Toker, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed malpractice claims during 2006-2015 from medical liability insurer CRICO’s Comparative Benchmarking System database, which represents 30% of all malpractice claims in the United States.

Investigators sought to identify diseases accounting for the majority of serious diagnosis-related harms associated with the claims. Of 55,377 closed claims, researchers identified 11,592 diagnostic error cases, of which 7,379 resulted in high-severity harm.

Of the high-severity claims, 34% stemmed from inaccurate or delayed diagnosis (Diagnosis 2019 Jul 11. doi. org/10.1515/dx-2019-0019).

The majority of diagnostic mistakes (74%) causing the most severe harm were attributable to cancer (38%), vascular events (23%), and infection (14%). These cases resulted in nearly $2 billion in malpractice payouts over a 10-year period, investigators found.

Clinical judgment factors were the primary reason behind the alleged errors, specifically: failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test, narrow diagnostic focus with failure to establish a differential diagnosis, failure to appreciate and reconcile relevant symptoms or test results, and failure or delay in obtaining consultation or referral and misinterpretation of diagnostic studies.

“Diagnostic errors are the most common, the most catastrophic, and the most costly of medical errors,” Dr. Newman-Toker said at a press conference July 11. “We know that this is a major problem, at an individual, personal level, but also at a societal level and something we really have to take action toward fixing.”

This study breaks new ground by drilling into the major diseases most commonly associated with diagnostic errors, Dr. Newman-Toker said. In the cancer category, the most common cancers linked to severe harm were lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma. In the vascular category, the most common conditions were stroke; myocardial infarction; venous thromboembolism; aortic aneurysm and dissection; and arterial thromboembolism. In the area of infection, sepsis; meningitis and encephalitis; spinal abscess; pneumonia; and endocarditis were the most common infections identified.

The findings provide a starting point to make improvements in the area of medical errors, said Dr. Newman-Toker, president of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, an organization that aims to improve diagnosis and eliminate harm from diagnostic error.

“Although diagnostic errors happen everywhere, across all of medicine in every discipline with every disease, we might be able to take a big chunk out of this problem if we save a lot of lives and prevent a lot disability and if we focus some energy on tackling these problems,” he said. “It at least gives us a starting place and a roadmap for how to move the ball forward in this regard.”

The Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine has called on Congress to invest more funding into research to address diagnostic errors. Society CEO and cofounder Paul L. Epner noted that the 2019 House appropriations bill proposes not less than $4 million for diagnostic safety and quality research, which is up from $2 million last year.

“It’s a small step, but in the right direction,” Mr. Epner said. “[However,] the federal investment in research remains trivially small in relation to the public burden. That’s why we urge Congress to commit to research funding levels proportionate to the societal cost, in both human lives and in dollars.”

[email protected]
 

A third of medical malpractice cases associated with patient death or permanent disability result from diagnostic errors by health providers, an analysis finds.

Lead investigator David E. Newman-Toker, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed malpractice claims during 2006-2015 from medical liability insurer CRICO’s Comparative Benchmarking System database, which represents 30% of all malpractice claims in the United States.

Investigators sought to identify diseases accounting for the majority of serious diagnosis-related harms associated with the claims. Of 55,377 closed claims, researchers identified 11,592 diagnostic error cases, of which 7,379 resulted in high-severity harm.

Of the high-severity claims, 34% stemmed from inaccurate or delayed diagnosis (Diagnosis 2019 Jul 11. doi. org/10.1515/dx-2019-0019).

The majority of diagnostic mistakes (74%) causing the most severe harm were attributable to cancer (38%), vascular events (23%), and infection (14%). These cases resulted in nearly $2 billion in malpractice payouts over a 10-year period, investigators found.

Clinical judgment factors were the primary reason behind the alleged errors, specifically: failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test, narrow diagnostic focus with failure to establish a differential diagnosis, failure to appreciate and reconcile relevant symptoms or test results, and failure or delay in obtaining consultation or referral and misinterpretation of diagnostic studies.

“Diagnostic errors are the most common, the most catastrophic, and the most costly of medical errors,” Dr. Newman-Toker said at a press conference July 11. “We know that this is a major problem, at an individual, personal level, but also at a societal level and something we really have to take action toward fixing.”

This study breaks new ground by drilling into the major diseases most commonly associated with diagnostic errors, Dr. Newman-Toker said. In the cancer category, the most common cancers linked to severe harm were lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma. In the vascular category, the most common conditions were stroke; myocardial infarction; venous thromboembolism; aortic aneurysm and dissection; and arterial thromboembolism. In the area of infection, sepsis; meningitis and encephalitis; spinal abscess; pneumonia; and endocarditis were the most common infections identified.

The findings provide a starting point to make improvements in the area of medical errors, said Dr. Newman-Toker, president of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, an organization that aims to improve diagnosis and eliminate harm from diagnostic error.

“Although diagnostic errors happen everywhere, across all of medicine in every discipline with every disease, we might be able to take a big chunk out of this problem if we save a lot of lives and prevent a lot disability and if we focus some energy on tackling these problems,” he said. “It at least gives us a starting place and a roadmap for how to move the ball forward in this regard.”

The Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine has called on Congress to invest more funding into research to address diagnostic errors. Society CEO and cofounder Paul L. Epner noted that the 2019 House appropriations bill proposes not less than $4 million for diagnostic safety and quality research, which is up from $2 million last year.

“It’s a small step, but in the right direction,” Mr. Epner said. “[However,] the federal investment in research remains trivially small in relation to the public burden. That’s why we urge Congress to commit to research funding levels proportionate to the societal cost, in both human lives and in dollars.”

[email protected]
 

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are at a significantly increased risk for hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), compared with patients without COPD, a large prospective study has found.

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

Jose Bordon, MD, and colleagues aimed to define incidence and outcomes of COPD patients hospitalized with pneumonia in the city of Louisville, Ky., and to extrapolate the burden of disease in the U.S. population. They conducted a secondary analysis of data from the University of Louisville Pneumonia Study, a prospective population-based cohort study of all hospitalized adults with CAP who were residents in the city of Louisville, Ky., from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2016.

COPD prevalence in the city of Louisville was derived via data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) as well as from the 2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). In addition, the researchers analyzed clinical outcomes including time to clinical stability (TCS), length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality, according to Dr. Bordon, an infectious disease specialist at Providence Health Center, Washington, and colleagues on behalf of the University of Louisville Pneumonia Study Group.

The researchers found an 18-fold greater incidence of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with COPD, compared with non-COPD patients.

A total of 18,246 individuals aged 40 and older with COPD were estimated to live in Louisville, Ky. The researchers found that 3,419 COPD patients were hospitalized due to CAP in Louisville during the 2-year study period. COPD patients, compared with non-COPD patients, were more likely to have a history of heart failure, more ICU admissions, and use of mechanical ventilation, compared with patients without COPD. The two groups had similar pneumonia severity index scores, and 17% received oral steroids prior to admission. COPD patients had more pneumococcal pneumonia, despite receiving pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often than non-COPD patients.

The annual incidence of hospitalized CAP was 9,369 cases per 100,000 COPD patients in the city of Louisville. In the same period, the incidence of CAP in patients without COPD was 509 per 100,000, a more than 18-fold difference.

Although the incidence of CAP in COPD patients was much higher than in those without, the difference didn’t appear to have an impact on clinical outcomes. There were no clinical differences among patients with vs. without COPD in regard to time to reach clinical improvement and time of hospital discharge, and in-hospital mortality was not statistically significantly different between the groups, the authors reported. The mortality of COPD patients during hospitalization, at 30 days, at 6 months, and at 1 year was 5.6% of patients, 11.9%, 24.3%, and 33.0%, respectively vs. 6.6%, 14.2%, 24.2%, and 30.1% in non-COPD patients. However, 1-year all-cause mortality was a significant 25% greater among COPD patients, as might be expected by the progression and effects of the underlying disease.

“[Our] observations mean that nearly 1 in 10 persons with COPD will be hospitalized annually due to CAP. This translates into approximately 500,000 COPD patients hospitalized with CAP every year in the U.S., resulting in a substantial burden of approximately 5 billion U.S. dollars in hospitalization costs,” the researchers stated.

“Modifiable factors associated with CAP such as tobacco smoking and immunizations should be health interventions to prevent the burden of CAP in COPD patients,” even though “pneumococcal vaccination was used more often in the COPD population than in other CAP patients, but pneumococcal pneumonia still occurred at a numerically higher rate,” they noted.

The study was supported by the University of Louisville, Ky., with partial support from Pfizer. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bordon JM et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jun 26; doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.06.025.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are at a significantly increased risk for hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), compared with patients without COPD, a large prospective study has found.

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

Jose Bordon, MD, and colleagues aimed to define incidence and outcomes of COPD patients hospitalized with pneumonia in the city of Louisville, Ky., and to extrapolate the burden of disease in the U.S. population. They conducted a secondary analysis of data from the University of Louisville Pneumonia Study, a prospective population-based cohort study of all hospitalized adults with CAP who were residents in the city of Louisville, Ky., from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2016.

COPD prevalence in the city of Louisville was derived via data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) as well as from the 2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). In addition, the researchers analyzed clinical outcomes including time to clinical stability (TCS), length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality, according to Dr. Bordon, an infectious disease specialist at Providence Health Center, Washington, and colleagues on behalf of the University of Louisville Pneumonia Study Group.

The researchers found an 18-fold greater incidence of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with COPD, compared with non-COPD patients.

A total of 18,246 individuals aged 40 and older with COPD were estimated to live in Louisville, Ky. The researchers found that 3,419 COPD patients were hospitalized due to CAP in Louisville during the 2-year study period. COPD patients, compared with non-COPD patients, were more likely to have a history of heart failure, more ICU admissions, and use of mechanical ventilation, compared with patients without COPD. The two groups had similar pneumonia severity index scores, and 17% received oral steroids prior to admission. COPD patients had more pneumococcal pneumonia, despite receiving pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often than non-COPD patients.

The annual incidence of hospitalized CAP was 9,369 cases per 100,000 COPD patients in the city of Louisville. In the same period, the incidence of CAP in patients without COPD was 509 per 100,000, a more than 18-fold difference.

Although the incidence of CAP in COPD patients was much higher than in those without, the difference didn’t appear to have an impact on clinical outcomes. There were no clinical differences among patients with vs. without COPD in regard to time to reach clinical improvement and time of hospital discharge, and in-hospital mortality was not statistically significantly different between the groups, the authors reported. The mortality of COPD patients during hospitalization, at 30 days, at 6 months, and at 1 year was 5.6% of patients, 11.9%, 24.3%, and 33.0%, respectively vs. 6.6%, 14.2%, 24.2%, and 30.1% in non-COPD patients. However, 1-year all-cause mortality was a significant 25% greater among COPD patients, as might be expected by the progression and effects of the underlying disease.

“[Our] observations mean that nearly 1 in 10 persons with COPD will be hospitalized annually due to CAP. This translates into approximately 500,000 COPD patients hospitalized with CAP every year in the U.S., resulting in a substantial burden of approximately 5 billion U.S. dollars in hospitalization costs,” the researchers stated.

“Modifiable factors associated with CAP such as tobacco smoking and immunizations should be health interventions to prevent the burden of CAP in COPD patients,” even though “pneumococcal vaccination was used more often in the COPD population than in other CAP patients, but pneumococcal pneumonia still occurred at a numerically higher rate,” they noted.

The study was supported by the University of Louisville, Ky., with partial support from Pfizer. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bordon JM et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jun 26; doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.06.025.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are at a significantly increased risk for hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), compared with patients without COPD, a large prospective study has found.

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

Jose Bordon, MD, and colleagues aimed to define incidence and outcomes of COPD patients hospitalized with pneumonia in the city of Louisville, Ky., and to extrapolate the burden of disease in the U.S. population. They conducted a secondary analysis of data from the University of Louisville Pneumonia Study, a prospective population-based cohort study of all hospitalized adults with CAP who were residents in the city of Louisville, Ky., from June 1, 2014, to May 31, 2016.

COPD prevalence in the city of Louisville was derived via data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) as well as from the 2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). In addition, the researchers analyzed clinical outcomes including time to clinical stability (TCS), length of hospital stay (LOS), and mortality, according to Dr. Bordon, an infectious disease specialist at Providence Health Center, Washington, and colleagues on behalf of the University of Louisville Pneumonia Study Group.

The researchers found an 18-fold greater incidence of community-acquired pneumonia in patients with COPD, compared with non-COPD patients.

A total of 18,246 individuals aged 40 and older with COPD were estimated to live in Louisville, Ky. The researchers found that 3,419 COPD patients were hospitalized due to CAP in Louisville during the 2-year study period. COPD patients, compared with non-COPD patients, were more likely to have a history of heart failure, more ICU admissions, and use of mechanical ventilation, compared with patients without COPD. The two groups had similar pneumonia severity index scores, and 17% received oral steroids prior to admission. COPD patients had more pneumococcal pneumonia, despite receiving pneumococcal vaccine significantly more often than non-COPD patients.

The annual incidence of hospitalized CAP was 9,369 cases per 100,000 COPD patients in the city of Louisville. In the same period, the incidence of CAP in patients without COPD was 509 per 100,000, a more than 18-fold difference.

Although the incidence of CAP in COPD patients was much higher than in those without, the difference didn’t appear to have an impact on clinical outcomes. There were no clinical differences among patients with vs. without COPD in regard to time to reach clinical improvement and time of hospital discharge, and in-hospital mortality was not statistically significantly different between the groups, the authors reported. The mortality of COPD patients during hospitalization, at 30 days, at 6 months, and at 1 year was 5.6% of patients, 11.9%, 24.3%, and 33.0%, respectively vs. 6.6%, 14.2%, 24.2%, and 30.1% in non-COPD patients. However, 1-year all-cause mortality was a significant 25% greater among COPD patients, as might be expected by the progression and effects of the underlying disease.

“[Our] observations mean that nearly 1 in 10 persons with COPD will be hospitalized annually due to CAP. This translates into approximately 500,000 COPD patients hospitalized with CAP every year in the U.S., resulting in a substantial burden of approximately 5 billion U.S. dollars in hospitalization costs,” the researchers stated.

“Modifiable factors associated with CAP such as tobacco smoking and immunizations should be health interventions to prevent the burden of CAP in COPD patients,” even though “pneumococcal vaccination was used more often in the COPD population than in other CAP patients, but pneumococcal pneumonia still occurred at a numerically higher rate,” they noted.

The study was supported by the University of Louisville, Ky., with partial support from Pfizer. The authors reported having no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bordon JM et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jun 26; doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.06.025.

For primary care patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), point-of-care C-reactive protein testing reduced antibiotic use with no evidence of harm, according to a recent randomized, controlled trial.

Point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing led to fewer antibiotic prescriptions at the initial consultation, according to investigators participating in the PACE study, a multicenter, open-label trial of more than 600 patients with COPD enrolled at one of 86 general practices in the United Kingdom.

Patient-reported antibiotic use over the next 4 weeks was more than 20 percentage points lower for the group managed with the point-of-care strategy, compared with those who received usual care, according to the investigators, led by Christopher C. Butler, FMedSci, of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

Less antibiotic use and fewer prescriptions did not compromise patient-reported, disease-specific quality of life, added Dr. Butler and colleagues. Their report appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the United States and in Europe, more than 80% of COPD patients with acute exacerbations will receive an antibiotic prescription, according to Dr. Butler and coauthors.

“Although many patients who have acute exacerbations of COPD are helped by these treatments, others are not,” wrote the investigators, noting that in one hospital-based study, about one in five such exacerbations were thought to be due to noninfectious causes.

The present study included patients at least 40 years of age who presented to a primary care practice with an acute exacerbation and at least one of the three Anthonisen criteria (increased dyspnea, sputum production, and sputum purulence) intended to guide antibiotic therapy in COPD. A total of 325 were randomly assigned to the CRP testing group, and 324 to a group that received just usual care.

Antibiotic use was reported by fewer patients in the CRP testing group, compared with the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.47), the investigators reported.

Only 47.7% of patients in the CRP-guided group received antibiotic prescriptions at the initial consultation, vs. 69.7% of patients in the usual care group.

Hospitalizations over 6 months of follow-up were reported for 8.6% and 9.3% of patients in the CRP-guided and usual-care groups, respectively, while diagnoses of pneumonia were recorded for 3.0% and 4.0%. There was no clinically important difference between groups in the rate of antibiotic-related adverse effects.

“The evidence from our trial suggests that CRP-guided antibiotic prescribing for COPD exacerbations in primary care clinics may reduce patient-reported use of antibiotics and the prescribing of antibiotics by clinicians,” Dr. Butler and colleagues said in a discussion of these results.

Findings from the study by Dr. Butler and colleagues are “compelling enough” to support C-reactive protein (CRP) testing to guide antibiotic use in patient who have acute exacerbations of COPD, wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The trial achieved its objective, which was to show that CRP testing safely reduces antibiotic use,” stated Allan S. Brett, MD, and Majdi N. Al-Hasan, MB,BS, of the department of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Point-of-care testing of CRP could be applied even more broadly in clinical practice, Dr. Brett and Dr. Al-Hasan wrote, since testing has been shown to reduce prescribing of antibiotics for suspected lower respiratory tract infections and other common presentations in patients with no COPD.

“Whether primary care practices in the United States would embrace point-of-care CRP testing is another matter, given the regulatory requirements for in-office laboratory testing and uncertainty about reimbursement,” they noted.

Reduced antibiotic prescribing in patients with COPD likely has certain benefits, including reducing risk of Clostridioides difficile colitis, according to the authors.

By contrast, the current study did not determine which COPD patients might benefit from antibiotics, if any, nor which antibiotic might be warranted for those patients.

The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Program of the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Butler reported disclosures related to Roche Molecular Systems and Roche Molecular Diagnostics, among others.

SOURCE: Butler CC et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 10;381:111-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803185.

For primary care patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), point-of-care C-reactive protein testing reduced antibiotic use with no evidence of harm, according to a recent randomized, controlled trial.

Point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing led to fewer antibiotic prescriptions at the initial consultation, according to investigators participating in the PACE study, a multicenter, open-label trial of more than 600 patients with COPD enrolled at one of 86 general practices in the United Kingdom.

Patient-reported antibiotic use over the next 4 weeks was more than 20 percentage points lower for the group managed with the point-of-care strategy, compared with those who received usual care, according to the investigators, led by Christopher C. Butler, FMedSci, of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

Less antibiotic use and fewer prescriptions did not compromise patient-reported, disease-specific quality of life, added Dr. Butler and colleagues. Their report appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the United States and in Europe, more than 80% of COPD patients with acute exacerbations will receive an antibiotic prescription, according to Dr. Butler and coauthors.

“Although many patients who have acute exacerbations of COPD are helped by these treatments, others are not,” wrote the investigators, noting that in one hospital-based study, about one in five such exacerbations were thought to be due to noninfectious causes.

The present study included patients at least 40 years of age who presented to a primary care practice with an acute exacerbation and at least one of the three Anthonisen criteria (increased dyspnea, sputum production, and sputum purulence) intended to guide antibiotic therapy in COPD. A total of 325 were randomly assigned to the CRP testing group, and 324 to a group that received just usual care.

Antibiotic use was reported by fewer patients in the CRP testing group, compared with the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.47), the investigators reported.

Only 47.7% of patients in the CRP-guided group received antibiotic prescriptions at the initial consultation, vs. 69.7% of patients in the usual care group.

Hospitalizations over 6 months of follow-up were reported for 8.6% and 9.3% of patients in the CRP-guided and usual-care groups, respectively, while diagnoses of pneumonia were recorded for 3.0% and 4.0%. There was no clinically important difference between groups in the rate of antibiotic-related adverse effects.

“The evidence from our trial suggests that CRP-guided antibiotic prescribing for COPD exacerbations in primary care clinics may reduce patient-reported use of antibiotics and the prescribing of antibiotics by clinicians,” Dr. Butler and colleagues said in a discussion of these results.

Findings from the study by Dr. Butler and colleagues are “compelling enough” to support C-reactive protein (CRP) testing to guide antibiotic use in patient who have acute exacerbations of COPD, wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The trial achieved its objective, which was to show that CRP testing safely reduces antibiotic use,” stated Allan S. Brett, MD, and Majdi N. Al-Hasan, MB,BS, of the department of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Point-of-care testing of CRP could be applied even more broadly in clinical practice, Dr. Brett and Dr. Al-Hasan wrote, since testing has been shown to reduce prescribing of antibiotics for suspected lower respiratory tract infections and other common presentations in patients with no COPD.

“Whether primary care practices in the United States would embrace point-of-care CRP testing is another matter, given the regulatory requirements for in-office laboratory testing and uncertainty about reimbursement,” they noted.

Reduced antibiotic prescribing in patients with COPD likely has certain benefits, including reducing risk of Clostridioides difficile colitis, according to the authors.

By contrast, the current study did not determine which COPD patients might benefit from antibiotics, if any, nor which antibiotic might be warranted for those patients.

The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Program of the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Butler reported disclosures related to Roche Molecular Systems and Roche Molecular Diagnostics, among others.

SOURCE: Butler CC et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 10;381:111-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803185.

For primary care patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), point-of-care C-reactive protein testing reduced antibiotic use with no evidence of harm, according to a recent randomized, controlled trial.

Point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing led to fewer antibiotic prescriptions at the initial consultation, according to investigators participating in the PACE study, a multicenter, open-label trial of more than 600 patients with COPD enrolled at one of 86 general practices in the United Kingdom.

Patient-reported antibiotic use over the next 4 weeks was more than 20 percentage points lower for the group managed with the point-of-care strategy, compared with those who received usual care, according to the investigators, led by Christopher C. Butler, FMedSci, of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford (England).

Less antibiotic use and fewer prescriptions did not compromise patient-reported, disease-specific quality of life, added Dr. Butler and colleagues. Their report appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the United States and in Europe, more than 80% of COPD patients with acute exacerbations will receive an antibiotic prescription, according to Dr. Butler and coauthors.

“Although many patients who have acute exacerbations of COPD are helped by these treatments, others are not,” wrote the investigators, noting that in one hospital-based study, about one in five such exacerbations were thought to be due to noninfectious causes.

The present study included patients at least 40 years of age who presented to a primary care practice with an acute exacerbation and at least one of the three Anthonisen criteria (increased dyspnea, sputum production, and sputum purulence) intended to guide antibiotic therapy in COPD. A total of 325 were randomly assigned to the CRP testing group, and 324 to a group that received just usual care.

Antibiotic use was reported by fewer patients in the CRP testing group, compared with the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.47), the investigators reported.

Only 47.7% of patients in the CRP-guided group received antibiotic prescriptions at the initial consultation, vs. 69.7% of patients in the usual care group.

Hospitalizations over 6 months of follow-up were reported for 8.6% and 9.3% of patients in the CRP-guided and usual-care groups, respectively, while diagnoses of pneumonia were recorded for 3.0% and 4.0%. There was no clinically important difference between groups in the rate of antibiotic-related adverse effects.

“The evidence from our trial suggests that CRP-guided antibiotic prescribing for COPD exacerbations in primary care clinics may reduce patient-reported use of antibiotics and the prescribing of antibiotics by clinicians,” Dr. Butler and colleagues said in a discussion of these results.

Findings from the study by Dr. Butler and colleagues are “compelling enough” to support C-reactive protein (CRP) testing to guide antibiotic use in patient who have acute exacerbations of COPD, wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial.

“The trial achieved its objective, which was to show that CRP testing safely reduces antibiotic use,” stated Allan S. Brett, MD, and Majdi N. Al-Hasan, MB,BS, of the department of medicine at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Point-of-care testing of CRP could be applied even more broadly in clinical practice, Dr. Brett and Dr. Al-Hasan wrote, since testing has been shown to reduce prescribing of antibiotics for suspected lower respiratory tract infections and other common presentations in patients with no COPD.

“Whether primary care practices in the United States would embrace point-of-care CRP testing is another matter, given the regulatory requirements for in-office laboratory testing and uncertainty about reimbursement,” they noted.

Reduced antibiotic prescribing in patients with COPD likely has certain benefits, including reducing risk of Clostridioides difficile colitis, according to the authors.

By contrast, the current study did not determine which COPD patients might benefit from antibiotics, if any, nor which antibiotic might be warranted for those patients.

The study was supported by the Health Technology Assessment Program of the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Butler reported disclosures related to Roche Molecular Systems and Roche Molecular Diagnostics, among others.

SOURCE: Butler CC et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 10;381:111-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803185.

Higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, were associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure in a large, multi-ethnic cohort of adults in the United States.

Despite the potential benefits of omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for heart health, their use has been controversial, although data in a mouse model showed that dietary EPA was protective against heart failure, wrote Robert C. Block, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To examine the impact of EPA on heart failure in humans, the researchers used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a longitudinal cohort study of U.S. adults, including those who are African American, Hispanic, Asian, and white.

The researchers included 6,562 MESA participants aged 45-84 years from six communities. Participants underwent a baseline exam between July 2000 and July 2002 that included phospholipid measurements used to identify plasma EPA percentage, and they completed study visits approximately every other year for a median follow-up of 13 years.

A total of 292 heart failure events occurred during the follow-up period: 128 with reduced ejection fraction (EF less than 45%), 110 with preserved ejection fraction (EF at least 45%), and 54 with unknown EF status.

The percent EPA for individuals without heart failure was significantly higher compared with those with heart failure (0.76% vs. 0.69%, P =.005). The association remained significant after the researchers controlled for age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, lipids and lipid-lowering drugs, albuminuria, and the lead fatty acid (defined as the fatty acid with the largest in-cluster correlation).


An EPA level greater than 2.5% was considered sufficient to prevent heart failure based on prior definitions. A total of 73% of the participants had insufficient EPA (less than 1.0%), 2.4% had marginal levels (1.0%-2.5%), and 4.5% had sufficient levels. However, given that EPA levels can be easily and safely increased with the consumption of seafood or fish oil capsules, increasing EPA is a feasible heart failure prevention strategy, the researchers said.

The study included 2,532 white, 1,794 black, 1,442 Hispanic, and 794 Chinese participants. Overall, the fewest Hispanic participants met the criteria for sufficient EPA (1.4%), followed by black (4.4%), white (4.9%), and Chinese participants (9.8%).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including relatively few participants with preserved ejection fractions and sufficient EPA levels, as well as the inability to account for changes in omega-3 levels and other risk factors over time, the researchers noted.

“We consider this study to strongly determine a benefit of EPA exists, but insufficient to determine whether a threshold for %EPA exists near 3%,” they said. They proposed a follow-up study including individuals with higher levels of EPA to better detect a protective effect.

Lead author Dr. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received honoraria from Amarin Pharmaceuticals. The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, were associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure in a large, multi-ethnic cohort of adults in the United States.

Despite the potential benefits of omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for heart health, their use has been controversial, although data in a mouse model showed that dietary EPA was protective against heart failure, wrote Robert C. Block, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To examine the impact of EPA on heart failure in humans, the researchers used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a longitudinal cohort study of U.S. adults, including those who are African American, Hispanic, Asian, and white.

The researchers included 6,562 MESA participants aged 45-84 years from six communities. Participants underwent a baseline exam between July 2000 and July 2002 that included phospholipid measurements used to identify plasma EPA percentage, and they completed study visits approximately every other year for a median follow-up of 13 years.

A total of 292 heart failure events occurred during the follow-up period: 128 with reduced ejection fraction (EF less than 45%), 110 with preserved ejection fraction (EF at least 45%), and 54 with unknown EF status.

The percent EPA for individuals without heart failure was significantly higher compared with those with heart failure (0.76% vs. 0.69%, P =.005). The association remained significant after the researchers controlled for age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, lipids and lipid-lowering drugs, albuminuria, and the lead fatty acid (defined as the fatty acid with the largest in-cluster correlation).


An EPA level greater than 2.5% was considered sufficient to prevent heart failure based on prior definitions. A total of 73% of the participants had insufficient EPA (less than 1.0%), 2.4% had marginal levels (1.0%-2.5%), and 4.5% had sufficient levels. However, given that EPA levels can be easily and safely increased with the consumption of seafood or fish oil capsules, increasing EPA is a feasible heart failure prevention strategy, the researchers said.

The study included 2,532 white, 1,794 black, 1,442 Hispanic, and 794 Chinese participants. Overall, the fewest Hispanic participants met the criteria for sufficient EPA (1.4%), followed by black (4.4%), white (4.9%), and Chinese participants (9.8%).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including relatively few participants with preserved ejection fractions and sufficient EPA levels, as well as the inability to account for changes in omega-3 levels and other risk factors over time, the researchers noted.

“We consider this study to strongly determine a benefit of EPA exists, but insufficient to determine whether a threshold for %EPA exists near 3%,” they said. They proposed a follow-up study including individuals with higher levels of EPA to better detect a protective effect.

Lead author Dr. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received honoraria from Amarin Pharmaceuticals. The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Higher levels of eicosapentaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, were associated with a significantly reduced risk of heart failure in a large, multi-ethnic cohort of adults in the United States.

Despite the potential benefits of omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) for heart health, their use has been controversial, although data in a mouse model showed that dietary EPA was protective against heart failure, wrote Robert C. Block, MD, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), and colleagues. Their report is in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To examine the impact of EPA on heart failure in humans, the researchers used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a longitudinal cohort study of U.S. adults, including those who are African American, Hispanic, Asian, and white.

The researchers included 6,562 MESA participants aged 45-84 years from six communities. Participants underwent a baseline exam between July 2000 and July 2002 that included phospholipid measurements used to identify plasma EPA percentage, and they completed study visits approximately every other year for a median follow-up of 13 years.

A total of 292 heart failure events occurred during the follow-up period: 128 with reduced ejection fraction (EF less than 45%), 110 with preserved ejection fraction (EF at least 45%), and 54 with unknown EF status.

The percent EPA for individuals without heart failure was significantly higher compared with those with heart failure (0.76% vs. 0.69%, P =.005). The association remained significant after the researchers controlled for age, sex, race, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, lipids and lipid-lowering drugs, albuminuria, and the lead fatty acid (defined as the fatty acid with the largest in-cluster correlation).


An EPA level greater than 2.5% was considered sufficient to prevent heart failure based on prior definitions. A total of 73% of the participants had insufficient EPA (less than 1.0%), 2.4% had marginal levels (1.0%-2.5%), and 4.5% had sufficient levels. However, given that EPA levels can be easily and safely increased with the consumption of seafood or fish oil capsules, increasing EPA is a feasible heart failure prevention strategy, the researchers said.

The study included 2,532 white, 1,794 black, 1,442 Hispanic, and 794 Chinese participants. Overall, the fewest Hispanic participants met the criteria for sufficient EPA (1.4%), followed by black (4.4%), white (4.9%), and Chinese participants (9.8%).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including relatively few participants with preserved ejection fractions and sufficient EPA levels, as well as the inability to account for changes in omega-3 levels and other risk factors over time, the researchers noted.

“We consider this study to strongly determine a benefit of EPA exists, but insufficient to determine whether a threshold for %EPA exists near 3%,” they said. They proposed a follow-up study including individuals with higher levels of EPA to better detect a protective effect.

Lead author Dr. Block had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors received honoraria from Amarin Pharmaceuticals. The study was funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.