User login
Prioritize goals of older patients with multimorbidities, gerontologist says
said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.
“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.
“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”
For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.
“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”
What is patient priorities care?
Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.
“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”
In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
How electronic health records can help
In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.
“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”
She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
Systemic obstacles and solutions
According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.
“Our health care system doesn’t always make it easy to do this,” Dr. Boyd said. “It’s important to acknowledge this because it can be hard to do. There’s no question,” Dr. Boyd said in an interview.
Among the headwinds that clinicians may face are clinical practice guidelines, the structure of electronic health records, and quality metrics focused on specific conditions, she explained.
“There’s a lot of things that push us – in primary care and other parts of medicine – away from the approach that’s best for people with multiple chronic conditions,” Dr. Boyd said.
Dr. Tinetti said a challenge to providing this care that she expects is for clinicians, regardless of specialty, “to feel uneasy” about transitioning away from a conventional approach.
Among Dr. Tinetti’s arguments in favor of providing patient priorities care is that “it’s going to bring more joy in practice because you’re really addressing what matters to that individual while also providing good care.”
To get the most out of patient priorities care, Dr. Boyd recommended that clinicians focus on ‘the 4 M’s’: what matters most, mentation, mobility, and medications.
In an effort to address the last of these on a broad scale, Dr. Boyd is co-leading the US Deprescribing Research Network(USDeN), which aims to “improve medication use among older adults and the outcomes that are important to them,” according to the USDeN website.
To encourage deprescribing on a day-to-day level, Dr. Boyd called for strong communication between co–managing providers.
In an ideal world, there would be a better way to communicate than largely via electronic health records, she said.
“We need more than the EHR to connect us. That’s why it’s really important for primary care providers and specialists to be able to have time to actually talk to each other. This gets into how we reimburse and organize the communication and cognitive aspects of care,” Dr. Boyd noted.
Dr. Tinetti disclosed support from the John A. Hartford Foundation, the Donaghue Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Boyd disclosed a relationship with UpToDate, for which she coauthored a chapter on multimorbidity.
said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.
“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.
“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”
For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.
“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”
What is patient priorities care?
Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.
“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”
In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
How electronic health records can help
In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.
“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”
She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
Systemic obstacles and solutions
According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.
“Our health care system doesn’t always make it easy to do this,” Dr. Boyd said. “It’s important to acknowledge this because it can be hard to do. There’s no question,” Dr. Boyd said in an interview.
Among the headwinds that clinicians may face are clinical practice guidelines, the structure of electronic health records, and quality metrics focused on specific conditions, she explained.
“There’s a lot of things that push us – in primary care and other parts of medicine – away from the approach that’s best for people with multiple chronic conditions,” Dr. Boyd said.
Dr. Tinetti said a challenge to providing this care that she expects is for clinicians, regardless of specialty, “to feel uneasy” about transitioning away from a conventional approach.
Among Dr. Tinetti’s arguments in favor of providing patient priorities care is that “it’s going to bring more joy in practice because you’re really addressing what matters to that individual while also providing good care.”
To get the most out of patient priorities care, Dr. Boyd recommended that clinicians focus on ‘the 4 M’s’: what matters most, mentation, mobility, and medications.
In an effort to address the last of these on a broad scale, Dr. Boyd is co-leading the US Deprescribing Research Network(USDeN), which aims to “improve medication use among older adults and the outcomes that are important to them,” according to the USDeN website.
To encourage deprescribing on a day-to-day level, Dr. Boyd called for strong communication between co–managing providers.
In an ideal world, there would be a better way to communicate than largely via electronic health records, she said.
“We need more than the EHR to connect us. That’s why it’s really important for primary care providers and specialists to be able to have time to actually talk to each other. This gets into how we reimburse and organize the communication and cognitive aspects of care,” Dr. Boyd noted.
Dr. Tinetti disclosed support from the John A. Hartford Foundation, the Donaghue Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Boyd disclosed a relationship with UpToDate, for which she coauthored a chapter on multimorbidity.
said Mary Tinetti, MD, Gladys Phillips Crofoot Professor of Medicine and Public Health and chief of geriatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
During a virtual presentation at the American College of Physicians annual Internal Medicine meeting, the gerontologist noted that primary care providers face a number of challenges when managing elderly patients with multimorbidity. These challenges include a lack of representative data in clinical trials, conflicting guideline recommendations, patient nonadherence, and decreased benefit from therapies due to competing conditions, she said.
“Trying to follow multiple guidelines can result in unintentional harms to these people with multiple conditions,” Dr. Tinetti said. She gave examples of the wide-ranging goals patients can have.
“Some [patients] will maximize the focus on function, regardless of how long they are likely to live,” Dr. Tinetti said. “Others will say symptom burden management is most important to them. And others will say they want to live as long as possible, and survival is most important, even if that means a reduction in their function. These individuals also vary in the care they are willing and able to receive to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them.”
For these reasons, Dr. Tinetti recommended patient priorities care, which she and her colleagues have been developing and implementing over the past 5-6 years.
“If the benefits and harms of addressing each condition in isolation is of uncertain benefit and potentially burdensome to both clinician and patient, and we know that patients vary in their health priorities ... then what else would you want to focus on in your 20-minute visit ... except each patient’s priorities?” Dr. Tinetti asked. “This is one solution to the challenge.”
What is patient priorities care?
Patient priorities care is a multidisciplinary, cyclical approach to clinical decision-making composed of three steps, Dr. Tinetti explained. First, a clinician identifies the patient’s health priorities. Second, this information is transmitted to comanaging providers, who decide which of their respective treatments are consistent with the patient’s priorities. And third, those decisions are disseminated to everyone involved in the patient’s care, both within and outside of the health care system, allowing all care providers to align with the patient’s priorities, she noted.
“Each person does that from their own expertise,” Dr. Tinetti said. “The social worker will do something different than the cardiologist, the physical therapist, the endocrinologist – but everybody is aiming at the same outcome – the patient’s priorities.”
In 2019, Dr. Tinetti led a nonrandomized clinical trial to test the feasibility of patient priorities care. The study involved 366 older adults with multimorbidity, among whom 203 received usual care, while 163 received this type of care. Patients in the latter group were twice as likely to have medications stopped, and significantly less likely to have self-management tasks added and diagnostic tests ordered.
How electronic health records can help
In an interview, Dr. Tinetti suggested that comanaging physicians communicate through electronic health records (EHRs), first to ensure that all care providers understand a patient’s goals, then to determine if recommended therapies align with those goals.
“It would be a little bit of a culture change to do that,” Dr. Tinetti said, “but the technology is there and it isn’t too terribly time consuming.”
She went on to suggest that primary care providers are typically best suited to coordinate this process; however, if a patient receives the majority of their care from a particular specialist, then that clinician may be the most suitable coordinator.
Systemic obstacles and solutions
According to Cynthia Boyd, MD, interim director of the division of geriatric medicine and gerontology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, clinicians may encounter obstacles when implementing patient priorities care.
“Our health care system doesn’t always make it easy to do this,” Dr. Boyd said. “It’s important to acknowledge this because it can be hard to do. There’s no question,” Dr. Boyd said in an interview.
Among the headwinds that clinicians may face are clinical practice guidelines, the structure of electronic health records, and quality metrics focused on specific conditions, she explained.
“There’s a lot of things that push us – in primary care and other parts of medicine – away from the approach that’s best for people with multiple chronic conditions,” Dr. Boyd said.
Dr. Tinetti said a challenge to providing this care that she expects is for clinicians, regardless of specialty, “to feel uneasy” about transitioning away from a conventional approach.
Among Dr. Tinetti’s arguments in favor of providing patient priorities care is that “it’s going to bring more joy in practice because you’re really addressing what matters to that individual while also providing good care.”
To get the most out of patient priorities care, Dr. Boyd recommended that clinicians focus on ‘the 4 M’s’: what matters most, mentation, mobility, and medications.
In an effort to address the last of these on a broad scale, Dr. Boyd is co-leading the US Deprescribing Research Network(USDeN), which aims to “improve medication use among older adults and the outcomes that are important to them,” according to the USDeN website.
To encourage deprescribing on a day-to-day level, Dr. Boyd called for strong communication between co–managing providers.
In an ideal world, there would be a better way to communicate than largely via electronic health records, she said.
“We need more than the EHR to connect us. That’s why it’s really important for primary care providers and specialists to be able to have time to actually talk to each other. This gets into how we reimburse and organize the communication and cognitive aspects of care,” Dr. Boyd noted.
Dr. Tinetti disclosed support from the John A. Hartford Foundation, the Donaghue Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Boyd disclosed a relationship with UpToDate, for which she coauthored a chapter on multimorbidity.
FROM INTERNAL MEDICINE 2021
SHM Converge Daily News -- Day 2
Click here for the Thursday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.
Click here for the Thursday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.
Click here for the Thursday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.
Home Treatment of Presumed Melanocytic Nevus With Frankincense
To the Editor:
Melanocytic nevi are ubiquitous, and although they are benign, patients often desire to have them removed. We report a patient who presented to our clinic after attempting home removal of a concerning mole on the back with frankincense, a remedy that she found online.
A 43-year-old woman presented with a worrisome mole on the back. She had no personal history of skin cancer, but her father had a history of melanoma in situ in his 60s. The patient reported that she had the mole for years, but approximately 1 month prior to her visit she noticed that it began to bleed and crust, causing concern for melanoma. She read online that the lesion could be removed with topical application of the essential oil frankincense; she applied it directly to the lesion on the back. Within hours she developed a burn where it was applied with associated blistering.
Clinically, the lesion appeared as a darkly pigmented, well-circumscribed papule with hemorrhagic crust overlying a well-demarcated pink plaque (Figure 1). Dermatoscopically, the lesion lacked a pigment network and demonstrated 2 distinct pink papules with peripheral telangiectasia and a pink background with white streaks (Figure 2). A shave biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a nodular basal cell carcinoma extending to the base and margin.
Frankincense is the common name given to oleo-gum-resins of Boswellia species.1 It has been studied extensively for anti-inflammatory and antitumoral properties. It has been demonstrated that high concentrations of its active component, boswellic acid, can have a cytotoxic or cytostatic effect on certain malignant cell lines, such as melanoma, in vitro.2,3 It also has been shown to be antitumoral in mouse models.4 There are limited in vivo studies in the literature assessing the effects of boswellic acid or frankincense on cutaneous melanocytic lesions or other cutaneous malignancies, such as basal cell carcinoma.
A Google search of home remedy mole removal yielded more than 1,000,000 results. At the time of submission, the top 5 results all listed frankincense as a potential treatment along with garlic, iodine, castor oil, onion juice, pineapple juice, banana peels, honey, and aloe vera. None of the results cited evidence for their treatments. Although all recommended dilution of the frankincense prior to application, none warned of potential risks or side effects of its use.
Natural methods of home mole removal have long been sought after. Escharotics are most commonly utilized, including bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), zinc chloride, Chelidonium majus, and Solanum sodomaeum. Many formulations are commercially available online, despite the fact that they can be mutilating and potentially dangerous when used without appropriate supervision.5 This case and an online search demonstrated that these agents are not only potentially harmful home remedies but also are currently falsely advertised as effective therapeutic management for melanocytic nevi.
Approximately 6 million individuals in the United States search the internet for health information daily, and as many as 41% of those do so to learn about alternative medicine.5,6 Although information gleaned from search engines can be useful, it is unregulated and often can be inaccurate. Clinicians generally are unaware of the erroneous material presented online and, therefore, cannot appropriately combat patient misinformation. Our case demonstrates the need to maintain an awareness of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.
- Du Z, Liu Z, Ning Z, et al. Prospects of boswellic acids as potential pharmaceutics. Planta Med. 2015;81:259-271.
- Eichhorn T, Greten HJ, Efferth T. Molecular determinants of the response of tumor cells to boswellic acids. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2011;4:1171-1182.
- Zhao W, Entschladen F, Liu H, et al. Boswellic acid acetate induces differentiation and apoptosis in highly metastatic melanoma and fibrosarcoma cell. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:67-75.
- Huang MT, Badmaev V, Ding Y, et al. Anti-tumor and anti-carcinogenic activities of triterpenoid, beta-boswellic acid. Biofactors. 2000;13:225-230.
- Adler BL, Friedman AJ. Safety & efficacy of agents used for home mole removal and skin cancer treatment in the internet age, and analysis of cases. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:1058-1063.
- Kanthawala S, Vermeesch A, Given B, et al. Answers to health questions: internet search results versus online health community responses. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:E95.
To the Editor:
Melanocytic nevi are ubiquitous, and although they are benign, patients often desire to have them removed. We report a patient who presented to our clinic after attempting home removal of a concerning mole on the back with frankincense, a remedy that she found online.
A 43-year-old woman presented with a worrisome mole on the back. She had no personal history of skin cancer, but her father had a history of melanoma in situ in his 60s. The patient reported that she had the mole for years, but approximately 1 month prior to her visit she noticed that it began to bleed and crust, causing concern for melanoma. She read online that the lesion could be removed with topical application of the essential oil frankincense; she applied it directly to the lesion on the back. Within hours she developed a burn where it was applied with associated blistering.
Clinically, the lesion appeared as a darkly pigmented, well-circumscribed papule with hemorrhagic crust overlying a well-demarcated pink plaque (Figure 1). Dermatoscopically, the lesion lacked a pigment network and demonstrated 2 distinct pink papules with peripheral telangiectasia and a pink background with white streaks (Figure 2). A shave biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a nodular basal cell carcinoma extending to the base and margin.
Frankincense is the common name given to oleo-gum-resins of Boswellia species.1 It has been studied extensively for anti-inflammatory and antitumoral properties. It has been demonstrated that high concentrations of its active component, boswellic acid, can have a cytotoxic or cytostatic effect on certain malignant cell lines, such as melanoma, in vitro.2,3 It also has been shown to be antitumoral in mouse models.4 There are limited in vivo studies in the literature assessing the effects of boswellic acid or frankincense on cutaneous melanocytic lesions or other cutaneous malignancies, such as basal cell carcinoma.
A Google search of home remedy mole removal yielded more than 1,000,000 results. At the time of submission, the top 5 results all listed frankincense as a potential treatment along with garlic, iodine, castor oil, onion juice, pineapple juice, banana peels, honey, and aloe vera. None of the results cited evidence for their treatments. Although all recommended dilution of the frankincense prior to application, none warned of potential risks or side effects of its use.
Natural methods of home mole removal have long been sought after. Escharotics are most commonly utilized, including bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), zinc chloride, Chelidonium majus, and Solanum sodomaeum. Many formulations are commercially available online, despite the fact that they can be mutilating and potentially dangerous when used without appropriate supervision.5 This case and an online search demonstrated that these agents are not only potentially harmful home remedies but also are currently falsely advertised as effective therapeutic management for melanocytic nevi.
Approximately 6 million individuals in the United States search the internet for health information daily, and as many as 41% of those do so to learn about alternative medicine.5,6 Although information gleaned from search engines can be useful, it is unregulated and often can be inaccurate. Clinicians generally are unaware of the erroneous material presented online and, therefore, cannot appropriately combat patient misinformation. Our case demonstrates the need to maintain an awareness of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.
To the Editor:
Melanocytic nevi are ubiquitous, and although they are benign, patients often desire to have them removed. We report a patient who presented to our clinic after attempting home removal of a concerning mole on the back with frankincense, a remedy that she found online.
A 43-year-old woman presented with a worrisome mole on the back. She had no personal history of skin cancer, but her father had a history of melanoma in situ in his 60s. The patient reported that she had the mole for years, but approximately 1 month prior to her visit she noticed that it began to bleed and crust, causing concern for melanoma. She read online that the lesion could be removed with topical application of the essential oil frankincense; she applied it directly to the lesion on the back. Within hours she developed a burn where it was applied with associated blistering.
Clinically, the lesion appeared as a darkly pigmented, well-circumscribed papule with hemorrhagic crust overlying a well-demarcated pink plaque (Figure 1). Dermatoscopically, the lesion lacked a pigment network and demonstrated 2 distinct pink papules with peripheral telangiectasia and a pink background with white streaks (Figure 2). A shave biopsy of the lesion demonstrated a nodular basal cell carcinoma extending to the base and margin.
Frankincense is the common name given to oleo-gum-resins of Boswellia species.1 It has been studied extensively for anti-inflammatory and antitumoral properties. It has been demonstrated that high concentrations of its active component, boswellic acid, can have a cytotoxic or cytostatic effect on certain malignant cell lines, such as melanoma, in vitro.2,3 It also has been shown to be antitumoral in mouse models.4 There are limited in vivo studies in the literature assessing the effects of boswellic acid or frankincense on cutaneous melanocytic lesions or other cutaneous malignancies, such as basal cell carcinoma.
A Google search of home remedy mole removal yielded more than 1,000,000 results. At the time of submission, the top 5 results all listed frankincense as a potential treatment along with garlic, iodine, castor oil, onion juice, pineapple juice, banana peels, honey, and aloe vera. None of the results cited evidence for their treatments. Although all recommended dilution of the frankincense prior to application, none warned of potential risks or side effects of its use.
Natural methods of home mole removal have long been sought after. Escharotics are most commonly utilized, including bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), zinc chloride, Chelidonium majus, and Solanum sodomaeum. Many formulations are commercially available online, despite the fact that they can be mutilating and potentially dangerous when used without appropriate supervision.5 This case and an online search demonstrated that these agents are not only potentially harmful home remedies but also are currently falsely advertised as effective therapeutic management for melanocytic nevi.
Approximately 6 million individuals in the United States search the internet for health information daily, and as many as 41% of those do so to learn about alternative medicine.5,6 Although information gleaned from search engines can be useful, it is unregulated and often can be inaccurate. Clinicians generally are unaware of the erroneous material presented online and, therefore, cannot appropriately combat patient misinformation. Our case demonstrates the need to maintain an awareness of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.
- Du Z, Liu Z, Ning Z, et al. Prospects of boswellic acids as potential pharmaceutics. Planta Med. 2015;81:259-271.
- Eichhorn T, Greten HJ, Efferth T. Molecular determinants of the response of tumor cells to boswellic acids. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2011;4:1171-1182.
- Zhao W, Entschladen F, Liu H, et al. Boswellic acid acetate induces differentiation and apoptosis in highly metastatic melanoma and fibrosarcoma cell. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:67-75.
- Huang MT, Badmaev V, Ding Y, et al. Anti-tumor and anti-carcinogenic activities of triterpenoid, beta-boswellic acid. Biofactors. 2000;13:225-230.
- Adler BL, Friedman AJ. Safety & efficacy of agents used for home mole removal and skin cancer treatment in the internet age, and analysis of cases. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:1058-1063.
- Kanthawala S, Vermeesch A, Given B, et al. Answers to health questions: internet search results versus online health community responses. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:E95.
- Du Z, Liu Z, Ning Z, et al. Prospects of boswellic acids as potential pharmaceutics. Planta Med. 2015;81:259-271.
- Eichhorn T, Greten HJ, Efferth T. Molecular determinants of the response of tumor cells to boswellic acids. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2011;4:1171-1182.
- Zhao W, Entschladen F, Liu H, et al. Boswellic acid acetate induces differentiation and apoptosis in highly metastatic melanoma and fibrosarcoma cell. Cancer Detect Prev. 2003;27:67-75.
- Huang MT, Badmaev V, Ding Y, et al. Anti-tumor and anti-carcinogenic activities of triterpenoid, beta-boswellic acid. Biofactors. 2000;13:225-230.
- Adler BL, Friedman AJ. Safety & efficacy of agents used for home mole removal and skin cancer treatment in the internet age, and analysis of cases. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013;12:1058-1063.
- Kanthawala S, Vermeesch A, Given B, et al. Answers to health questions: internet search results versus online health community responses. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:E95.
Practice Points
- Many patients seek natural methods of home mole removal online, including topical application of essential oils such as frankincense.
- These agents often are unregulated and can be potentially harmful when used without appropriate supervision.
- Dermatologists should be aware of common online fallacies to better answer patient questions and guide them to more accurate sources of dermatologic information and appropriate treatment.
Multiple studies highlight pandemic’s impact on patients with rheumatic disease
Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.
Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.
Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.
“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.
Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”
The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’
“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.
“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.
“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”
One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.
Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.
“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight
The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”
There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.
“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.
Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.
Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.
While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study
A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.
In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.
“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.
Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.
Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.
According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.
Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.
“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”
There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.
“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”
The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.
No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.
Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.
Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.
“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.
Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”
The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’
“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.
“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.
“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”
One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.
Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.
“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight
The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”
There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.
“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.
Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.
Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.
While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study
A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.
In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.
“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.
Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.
Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.
According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.
Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.
“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”
There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.
“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”
The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.
No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.
Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.
Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.
“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.
Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”
The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’
“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.
“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.
“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”
One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.
Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.
“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight
The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”
There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.
“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.
Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.
Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.
While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study
A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.
In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.
“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.
Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.
Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.
According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.
Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.
“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”
There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.
“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”
The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.
No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
FROM BSR 2021
Wellness tips: How to build on failure
Converge 2021 session
Fall Down Seven Get Up Eight: Making Your Setbacks Count: Strategic Risk Taking, Maintaining Resilience, and Finding Success
Presenters
Marisha Burden, MD, and Flora Kisuule, MD, MPH, SFHM
Session summary
The speakers at this Converge session, in the “Wellness and Resilience” track, covered four major topics: strategic risk-taking, wrestling with failure, embracing constraints, and embracing institutional chaos. First, they began by relating a personal story about failure and discussed how reframing failure could help you learn how to “fail forward.” They outlined how building upon failures can lead to many benefits, such as gaining personal strength, gaining perspective, and seeing new possibilities. They also introduced three roadblocks to failing forward: Personalization, Pervasiveness, and Permanence.
Next, the speakers lead the attendees through an exercise called The Nine Dot Problem, the purpose of which was to illustrate how thinking outside the box can help you find solutions that you cannot otherwise see. They also discussed how thinking inside the box could have its own advantages in that it teaches us to embrace our limitations, which can open up our creativity. They expounded upon this by showing a TED talk about finding liberation in constraints. The speakers wrapped up the session relating the tale of David and Goliath, and explained how David used his own unique advantages to gain power over a seemingly insurmountable problem.
Key takeaways
- Failing forward helps you continue to push ahead and grow, and perspective can help you fail forward.
- When failing, beware the Three Ps.
- Reframe constraints and be sure to think both inside and outside of the box – embrace limitations as a way to inspire new thinking.
- When facing something bigger than you, play to your own advantages in order to succeed.
Ms. Panek is hospital medicine division administrator at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore.
Converge 2021 session
Fall Down Seven Get Up Eight: Making Your Setbacks Count: Strategic Risk Taking, Maintaining Resilience, and Finding Success
Presenters
Marisha Burden, MD, and Flora Kisuule, MD, MPH, SFHM
Session summary
The speakers at this Converge session, in the “Wellness and Resilience” track, covered four major topics: strategic risk-taking, wrestling with failure, embracing constraints, and embracing institutional chaos. First, they began by relating a personal story about failure and discussed how reframing failure could help you learn how to “fail forward.” They outlined how building upon failures can lead to many benefits, such as gaining personal strength, gaining perspective, and seeing new possibilities. They also introduced three roadblocks to failing forward: Personalization, Pervasiveness, and Permanence.
Next, the speakers lead the attendees through an exercise called The Nine Dot Problem, the purpose of which was to illustrate how thinking outside the box can help you find solutions that you cannot otherwise see. They also discussed how thinking inside the box could have its own advantages in that it teaches us to embrace our limitations, which can open up our creativity. They expounded upon this by showing a TED talk about finding liberation in constraints. The speakers wrapped up the session relating the tale of David and Goliath, and explained how David used his own unique advantages to gain power over a seemingly insurmountable problem.
Key takeaways
- Failing forward helps you continue to push ahead and grow, and perspective can help you fail forward.
- When failing, beware the Three Ps.
- Reframe constraints and be sure to think both inside and outside of the box – embrace limitations as a way to inspire new thinking.
- When facing something bigger than you, play to your own advantages in order to succeed.
Ms. Panek is hospital medicine division administrator at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore.
Converge 2021 session
Fall Down Seven Get Up Eight: Making Your Setbacks Count: Strategic Risk Taking, Maintaining Resilience, and Finding Success
Presenters
Marisha Burden, MD, and Flora Kisuule, MD, MPH, SFHM
Session summary
The speakers at this Converge session, in the “Wellness and Resilience” track, covered four major topics: strategic risk-taking, wrestling with failure, embracing constraints, and embracing institutional chaos. First, they began by relating a personal story about failure and discussed how reframing failure could help you learn how to “fail forward.” They outlined how building upon failures can lead to many benefits, such as gaining personal strength, gaining perspective, and seeing new possibilities. They also introduced three roadblocks to failing forward: Personalization, Pervasiveness, and Permanence.
Next, the speakers lead the attendees through an exercise called The Nine Dot Problem, the purpose of which was to illustrate how thinking outside the box can help you find solutions that you cannot otherwise see. They also discussed how thinking inside the box could have its own advantages in that it teaches us to embrace our limitations, which can open up our creativity. They expounded upon this by showing a TED talk about finding liberation in constraints. The speakers wrapped up the session relating the tale of David and Goliath, and explained how David used his own unique advantages to gain power over a seemingly insurmountable problem.
Key takeaways
- Failing forward helps you continue to push ahead and grow, and perspective can help you fail forward.
- When failing, beware the Three Ps.
- Reframe constraints and be sure to think both inside and outside of the box – embrace limitations as a way to inspire new thinking.
- When facing something bigger than you, play to your own advantages in order to succeed.
Ms. Panek is hospital medicine division administrator at the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore.
FROM SHM CONVERGE 2021
Look beyond liver biopsy for NAFLD diagnosis
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was present in approximately two-thirds of patients who did not undergo a liver biopsy. These patients were more likely to be non-White and older, as well as have normal ALT levels, which shows potential gaps in knowledge about this population.
Data from studies of patients diagnosed with NAFLD that require biopsy among their inclusion criteria may be subject to selection and detection bias, wrote A. Sidney Barritt, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. The researchers sought to compare characteristics of patients with NAFLD who were diagnosed using clinical criteria and those diagnosed via liver biopsy.
In a study published in Hepatology Communications, the researchers reviewed data from TARGET-NASH, a longitudinal, observational cohort study designed to follow patients with NAFLD in clinical practice to provide data on the effectiveness of treatments.
“TARGET-NASH represents a large cohort of NAFLD patients from multiple sites and can provide us with real world information on progression of disease in patients with NAFLD and particular risk factors that may be clinically relevant,” Zachary Henry, MD, MS, of the division of gastroenterology & hepatology at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, said in an interview. “This is one of the first studies from this database, and as time goes on, we will see more large-population data like this to answer specific questions for NAFLD patient.”
Surprising findings
The researchers included 3,474 patients aged 18 years and older who were enrolled in the TARGET-NASH study between Aug. 1, 2016, and March 4, 2019. The study participants were classified according to severity of liver disease: nonalcoholic fatty liver (30%), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (37%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (33%).
A total of 766 patients were diagnosed with NASH based on clinical criteria without biopsy, and all met the criteria for abnormal ALT and steatosis based on imaging. In addition, these patients had at least one secondary diagnostic criteria: body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2 (74%), type 2 diabetes (42%), and dyslipidemia (54%). Significant independent predictors of liver biopsy included younger age, White race, female gender, diabetes, and elevated levels of ALT.
Elevated ALT increased the odds of liver biopsy by 14% per 10-point rise, according to the study. A machine learning model showed that non-White patients with ALT less than 69 IU/mL had a 6% chance of liver biopsy. By comparison, White patients had a 21% chance of biopsy with ALT between 29 IU/mL and 69 IU/mL that dropped to 10% if the ALT was less than 29 IU/mL.
However, ALT remains a “suboptimal surrogate” for disease severity, the researchers noted. “How a normal ALT is defined and how a normal ALT range may vary across different laboratories may play a role in its utility as a diagnostic tool as well.”
Dr. Henry was surprised by this finding: “With the advent of noninvasive measures of fibrosis, such as the NAFLD fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4, and transient elastography, I thought these would have a more significant role in that decision as opposed to ALT levels.”
Notably, mental health diagnoses accounted for nearly half (49%) of comorbid conditions, followed by cardiovascular disease (19%), and osteoarthritis (10%). The prevalence of these conditions emphasizes the challenges of managing patients with NAFLD with diet and exercise alone because mental and physical problems may impede progress, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to determine health care provider intent, as well as undocumented factors related to patients and providers that might influence a biopsy decision, such as assessment of disease severity, the researchers noted. In addition, they noted that the mostly White study population treated in specialty settings might not generalize to other populations or primary care.
However, the findings are strengthened by the large study population and real-world setting, the researchers emphasized. “These data provide context for the selection bias that may be present in many registries and randomized, controlled trials of therapies for NAFLD, where biopsy is required for inclusion,” and show potential knowledge gaps about the patient population less likely to undergo biopsy.
Knowledge gaps and implications
The study is important because of the need to identify patient factors that predict histologic versus clinical diagnosis of NAFLD as the number of patient registries and clinical trials for NAFLD increase, Bubu Banini, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “This information helps to elucidate selection and ascertainment bias and place findings from NAFLD registries and clinical trials into context.”
Dr. Banini said that some of the findings were to be expected, while others were not.
“Historically, males and non-Whites are less likely to participate in registries and clinical trials, compared to females and Whites. However, I was surprised to find that these discrepancies further paralleled the likelihood of undergoing liver biopsy even among those who chose to participate. In addition, while mental health disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are a fairly prevalent comorbidity in patients with NAFLD, I was surprised to find that NAFLD patients with mental health disorders were more likely to undergo liver biopsy compared to those without these disorders. I would have expected the reverse,” he noted.
“These findings highlight the gaps in knowledge regarding the impact of demographic and psychosocial factors on choice and assess to care among patients with NAFLD, and the need for further studies to address these gaps,” she emphasized.
“A number of [studies] such as TARGET-NASH are doing away with the requirement for liver biopsy for participation; hence, it is less likely that selection bias related to liver biopsy would be a problem in these [studies] if clinical diagnosis is considered as a surrogate for histological diagnosis,” Dr. Banini added.
“On the contrary, many NAFLD clinical trials require liver biopsy for inclusion.” As nicely demonstrated in the current study, “this inclusion criterion may introduce selection bias,” she said. “Awareness of potential biases would hopefully inform the design and recruitment strategy for registries and clinical trials in order to overcome these issues.”
“I think the results of this study may actually point to a larger issue within medicine in general, which is a difference in care provided to minority communities,” Dr. Henry said. “Whether this is intentional, related to unconscious bias on the part of providers, or related to a significant mistrust between minority communities and their health care providers is unclear but certainly needs to be addressed.”
He noted that the purpose of TARGET-NASH is to enroll all patients with NAFLD regardless of biopsy. “Over time, as we have more data on these patients, we will have a better understanding of both diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in patients with NAFLD.”
The study was supported by Target RWE, sponsor of the TARGET-NASH study. TARGET-NASH is a collaboration of academic and community investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. Lead author Dr. Barritt had no financial conflicts to disclose, but many study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those involved in the TARGET-NASH study. Dr. Banini currently serves on the NASH advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Henry reported no disclosures, although his institution is one of the enrollment sites for TARGET-NASH.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was present in approximately two-thirds of patients who did not undergo a liver biopsy. These patients were more likely to be non-White and older, as well as have normal ALT levels, which shows potential gaps in knowledge about this population.
Data from studies of patients diagnosed with NAFLD that require biopsy among their inclusion criteria may be subject to selection and detection bias, wrote A. Sidney Barritt, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. The researchers sought to compare characteristics of patients with NAFLD who were diagnosed using clinical criteria and those diagnosed via liver biopsy.
In a study published in Hepatology Communications, the researchers reviewed data from TARGET-NASH, a longitudinal, observational cohort study designed to follow patients with NAFLD in clinical practice to provide data on the effectiveness of treatments.
“TARGET-NASH represents a large cohort of NAFLD patients from multiple sites and can provide us with real world information on progression of disease in patients with NAFLD and particular risk factors that may be clinically relevant,” Zachary Henry, MD, MS, of the division of gastroenterology & hepatology at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, said in an interview. “This is one of the first studies from this database, and as time goes on, we will see more large-population data like this to answer specific questions for NAFLD patient.”
Surprising findings
The researchers included 3,474 patients aged 18 years and older who were enrolled in the TARGET-NASH study between Aug. 1, 2016, and March 4, 2019. The study participants were classified according to severity of liver disease: nonalcoholic fatty liver (30%), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (37%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (33%).
A total of 766 patients were diagnosed with NASH based on clinical criteria without biopsy, and all met the criteria for abnormal ALT and steatosis based on imaging. In addition, these patients had at least one secondary diagnostic criteria: body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2 (74%), type 2 diabetes (42%), and dyslipidemia (54%). Significant independent predictors of liver biopsy included younger age, White race, female gender, diabetes, and elevated levels of ALT.
Elevated ALT increased the odds of liver biopsy by 14% per 10-point rise, according to the study. A machine learning model showed that non-White patients with ALT less than 69 IU/mL had a 6% chance of liver biopsy. By comparison, White patients had a 21% chance of biopsy with ALT between 29 IU/mL and 69 IU/mL that dropped to 10% if the ALT was less than 29 IU/mL.
However, ALT remains a “suboptimal surrogate” for disease severity, the researchers noted. “How a normal ALT is defined and how a normal ALT range may vary across different laboratories may play a role in its utility as a diagnostic tool as well.”
Dr. Henry was surprised by this finding: “With the advent of noninvasive measures of fibrosis, such as the NAFLD fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4, and transient elastography, I thought these would have a more significant role in that decision as opposed to ALT levels.”
Notably, mental health diagnoses accounted for nearly half (49%) of comorbid conditions, followed by cardiovascular disease (19%), and osteoarthritis (10%). The prevalence of these conditions emphasizes the challenges of managing patients with NAFLD with diet and exercise alone because mental and physical problems may impede progress, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to determine health care provider intent, as well as undocumented factors related to patients and providers that might influence a biopsy decision, such as assessment of disease severity, the researchers noted. In addition, they noted that the mostly White study population treated in specialty settings might not generalize to other populations or primary care.
However, the findings are strengthened by the large study population and real-world setting, the researchers emphasized. “These data provide context for the selection bias that may be present in many registries and randomized, controlled trials of therapies for NAFLD, where biopsy is required for inclusion,” and show potential knowledge gaps about the patient population less likely to undergo biopsy.
Knowledge gaps and implications
The study is important because of the need to identify patient factors that predict histologic versus clinical diagnosis of NAFLD as the number of patient registries and clinical trials for NAFLD increase, Bubu Banini, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “This information helps to elucidate selection and ascertainment bias and place findings from NAFLD registries and clinical trials into context.”
Dr. Banini said that some of the findings were to be expected, while others were not.
“Historically, males and non-Whites are less likely to participate in registries and clinical trials, compared to females and Whites. However, I was surprised to find that these discrepancies further paralleled the likelihood of undergoing liver biopsy even among those who chose to participate. In addition, while mental health disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are a fairly prevalent comorbidity in patients with NAFLD, I was surprised to find that NAFLD patients with mental health disorders were more likely to undergo liver biopsy compared to those without these disorders. I would have expected the reverse,” he noted.
“These findings highlight the gaps in knowledge regarding the impact of demographic and psychosocial factors on choice and assess to care among patients with NAFLD, and the need for further studies to address these gaps,” she emphasized.
“A number of [studies] such as TARGET-NASH are doing away with the requirement for liver biopsy for participation; hence, it is less likely that selection bias related to liver biopsy would be a problem in these [studies] if clinical diagnosis is considered as a surrogate for histological diagnosis,” Dr. Banini added.
“On the contrary, many NAFLD clinical trials require liver biopsy for inclusion.” As nicely demonstrated in the current study, “this inclusion criterion may introduce selection bias,” she said. “Awareness of potential biases would hopefully inform the design and recruitment strategy for registries and clinical trials in order to overcome these issues.”
“I think the results of this study may actually point to a larger issue within medicine in general, which is a difference in care provided to minority communities,” Dr. Henry said. “Whether this is intentional, related to unconscious bias on the part of providers, or related to a significant mistrust between minority communities and their health care providers is unclear but certainly needs to be addressed.”
He noted that the purpose of TARGET-NASH is to enroll all patients with NAFLD regardless of biopsy. “Over time, as we have more data on these patients, we will have a better understanding of both diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in patients with NAFLD.”
The study was supported by Target RWE, sponsor of the TARGET-NASH study. TARGET-NASH is a collaboration of academic and community investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. Lead author Dr. Barritt had no financial conflicts to disclose, but many study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those involved in the TARGET-NASH study. Dr. Banini currently serves on the NASH advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Henry reported no disclosures, although his institution is one of the enrollment sites for TARGET-NASH.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) was present in approximately two-thirds of patients who did not undergo a liver biopsy. These patients were more likely to be non-White and older, as well as have normal ALT levels, which shows potential gaps in knowledge about this population.
Data from studies of patients diagnosed with NAFLD that require biopsy among their inclusion criteria may be subject to selection and detection bias, wrote A. Sidney Barritt, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. The researchers sought to compare characteristics of patients with NAFLD who were diagnosed using clinical criteria and those diagnosed via liver biopsy.
In a study published in Hepatology Communications, the researchers reviewed data from TARGET-NASH, a longitudinal, observational cohort study designed to follow patients with NAFLD in clinical practice to provide data on the effectiveness of treatments.
“TARGET-NASH represents a large cohort of NAFLD patients from multiple sites and can provide us with real world information on progression of disease in patients with NAFLD and particular risk factors that may be clinically relevant,” Zachary Henry, MD, MS, of the division of gastroenterology & hepatology at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, said in an interview. “This is one of the first studies from this database, and as time goes on, we will see more large-population data like this to answer specific questions for NAFLD patient.”
Surprising findings
The researchers included 3,474 patients aged 18 years and older who were enrolled in the TARGET-NASH study between Aug. 1, 2016, and March 4, 2019. The study participants were classified according to severity of liver disease: nonalcoholic fatty liver (30%), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (37%), and NAFLD cirrhosis (33%).
A total of 766 patients were diagnosed with NASH based on clinical criteria without biopsy, and all met the criteria for abnormal ALT and steatosis based on imaging. In addition, these patients had at least one secondary diagnostic criteria: body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2 (74%), type 2 diabetes (42%), and dyslipidemia (54%). Significant independent predictors of liver biopsy included younger age, White race, female gender, diabetes, and elevated levels of ALT.
Elevated ALT increased the odds of liver biopsy by 14% per 10-point rise, according to the study. A machine learning model showed that non-White patients with ALT less than 69 IU/mL had a 6% chance of liver biopsy. By comparison, White patients had a 21% chance of biopsy with ALT between 29 IU/mL and 69 IU/mL that dropped to 10% if the ALT was less than 29 IU/mL.
However, ALT remains a “suboptimal surrogate” for disease severity, the researchers noted. “How a normal ALT is defined and how a normal ALT range may vary across different laboratories may play a role in its utility as a diagnostic tool as well.”
Dr. Henry was surprised by this finding: “With the advent of noninvasive measures of fibrosis, such as the NAFLD fibrosis score, Fibrosis-4, and transient elastography, I thought these would have a more significant role in that decision as opposed to ALT levels.”
Notably, mental health diagnoses accounted for nearly half (49%) of comorbid conditions, followed by cardiovascular disease (19%), and osteoarthritis (10%). The prevalence of these conditions emphasizes the challenges of managing patients with NAFLD with diet and exercise alone because mental and physical problems may impede progress, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to determine health care provider intent, as well as undocumented factors related to patients and providers that might influence a biopsy decision, such as assessment of disease severity, the researchers noted. In addition, they noted that the mostly White study population treated in specialty settings might not generalize to other populations or primary care.
However, the findings are strengthened by the large study population and real-world setting, the researchers emphasized. “These data provide context for the selection bias that may be present in many registries and randomized, controlled trials of therapies for NAFLD, where biopsy is required for inclusion,” and show potential knowledge gaps about the patient population less likely to undergo biopsy.
Knowledge gaps and implications
The study is important because of the need to identify patient factors that predict histologic versus clinical diagnosis of NAFLD as the number of patient registries and clinical trials for NAFLD increase, Bubu Banini, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “This information helps to elucidate selection and ascertainment bias and place findings from NAFLD registries and clinical trials into context.”
Dr. Banini said that some of the findings were to be expected, while others were not.
“Historically, males and non-Whites are less likely to participate in registries and clinical trials, compared to females and Whites. However, I was surprised to find that these discrepancies further paralleled the likelihood of undergoing liver biopsy even among those who chose to participate. In addition, while mental health disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are a fairly prevalent comorbidity in patients with NAFLD, I was surprised to find that NAFLD patients with mental health disorders were more likely to undergo liver biopsy compared to those without these disorders. I would have expected the reverse,” he noted.
“These findings highlight the gaps in knowledge regarding the impact of demographic and psychosocial factors on choice and assess to care among patients with NAFLD, and the need for further studies to address these gaps,” she emphasized.
“A number of [studies] such as TARGET-NASH are doing away with the requirement for liver biopsy for participation; hence, it is less likely that selection bias related to liver biopsy would be a problem in these [studies] if clinical diagnosis is considered as a surrogate for histological diagnosis,” Dr. Banini added.
“On the contrary, many NAFLD clinical trials require liver biopsy for inclusion.” As nicely demonstrated in the current study, “this inclusion criterion may introduce selection bias,” she said. “Awareness of potential biases would hopefully inform the design and recruitment strategy for registries and clinical trials in order to overcome these issues.”
“I think the results of this study may actually point to a larger issue within medicine in general, which is a difference in care provided to minority communities,” Dr. Henry said. “Whether this is intentional, related to unconscious bias on the part of providers, or related to a significant mistrust between minority communities and their health care providers is unclear but certainly needs to be addressed.”
He noted that the purpose of TARGET-NASH is to enroll all patients with NAFLD regardless of biopsy. “Over time, as we have more data on these patients, we will have a better understanding of both diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in patients with NAFLD.”
The study was supported by Target RWE, sponsor of the TARGET-NASH study. TARGET-NASH is a collaboration of academic and community investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. Lead author Dr. Barritt had no financial conflicts to disclose, but many study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including those involved in the TARGET-NASH study. Dr. Banini currently serves on the NASH advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Henry reported no disclosures, although his institution is one of the enrollment sites for TARGET-NASH.
FROM HEPATOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS
Endoscopic device could expand treatment for GERD, reduce PPI use
In patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a procedure known as endoscopic full-thickness plication (EFTP) – performed with the novel GERD-X device – improved both symptoms and quality of life, compared with a sham procedure. It also had few side effects and a short procedure time, according to a new randomized, controlled trial.
“It seems like it is a quick, easy-to-use procedure,” Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, commented in an interview. Dr. Ketwaroo was not involved in the study.
“Even though the objective measures were not as good as perhaps you had hoped, the subjective outcomes were good. [And] it seems that it may have more of a long-term benefit, compared to some of the other endoscopic procedures. But that wasn’t a [primary] outcome of the study, and we still need more long-term studies to figure that out,” he added.
The research, led by Rakesh Kalapala, MD, DNB, and D. Nageshwar Reddy, MD, FACG, of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, appeared in Gut.
The fact that the EFTP procedure is relatively simple could reduce cost and ease the learning curve, which in turn could broaden accessibility if more gastroenterologists are trained on it.
“There are not many gastroenterologists who offer endoscopic approaches to GERD therapy, so increasing that cohort [could] potentially have a huge impact given the number of patients who have GERD in this country, and especially given the rising and persistent concern over long-term use of PPIs,” said Dr. Ketwaroo.
Addressing the drawbacks of long-term PPI use
Although PPIs are the most effective medical therapy for GERD, there are concerns that long-term use could increase the risk of acute and chronic kidney disease, hypomagnesaemia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and osteoporotic fractures. Surgical antireflux interventions are effective but may lead to dysphagia, bloating, and diarrhea.
EFTP applies transmural sutures to the gastroesophageal junction to strengthen the valvular mechanism, which reduces reflux. While the preponderance of published evidence supports the Esophyx device (EndoGastric Solutions), which has a 70% efficacy rate and few adverse events in one analysis, it requires advanced training and general anesthesia and takes 45-100 minutes.
“Endoscopic fundoplication is a minimally invasive antireflux therapy in patients with PPI dependence who refuse surgery; however, the majority of the endoscopic devices are cumbersome to use and robust data on their long-term efficacy are lacking,” Dr. Kalapala and colleagues noted in their new paper.
In 2014, the German company G-Surg introduced a novel endoscopic plication device called GERD-X. A prospective, single-arm study had shown efficacy in both patients taking PPIs and those with refractory GERD.
A closer look at the device
To bolster that evidence, Dr. Kalapala and colleagues conducted this new single-center, randomized, sham-controlled trial with 70 enrollees with PPI-dependent GERD, of which 70% had nonerosive reflux disease (mean DeMeester score, 18.9). The median participant age was 36 years, and 71.4% were male. The average procedure time was 17.4 minutes.
Of the subjects in the treatment group, 65.7% achieved at least a 50% improvement in GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) after 3 months, compared with 2.9% in the sham group (P < .001). The median percentage improvement in GERD-HRQL score was higher in the treatment group at 6 months (81.4% vs. 8.0%; P < .001) and at 12 months (92.3% vs. 9.1%; P < .001). Similar improvements were seen at 6 months and 12 months in heartburn symptom score (75.0% vs. 13.0% and 89.7% vs. 15.4%, respectively; P < .001 for both) and regurgitation symptom score (96.2% vs. 6.9% and 100% vs. 3.4%, respectively; P < .001 for both). At 12 months, 62.8% of the treatment group no longer took PPIs, compared with 11.4% of the sham group (P < .001).
Objective measures of improvement were more modest. The treatment arm trended toward a reduction in esophageal acid exposure from baseline at 3 and 12 months, but the difference was not statistically significant. The median percentage of time with esophageal pH below 4 and the DeMeester score were similar between the groups at 3 and 12 months. The researchers also noted trends toward fewer reflux events in 24 hours in the treatment group at 6 months (P = .072) and 12 months (P = .051).
The treatment group had fewer non–acid reflux episodes at 12 months versus baseline (P = .038), but there was no difference in the median number of acid reflux episodes in 24 hours.
“Our study found endoscopic full-thickness fundoplication, using a novel device, was safe and significantly improved GERD-related quality of life and severity of reflux symptoms at short and long terms, compared with a sham procedure,” wrote the authors.
“This endoluminal procedure with a short operating time and very few side effects is a promising alternative option to surgery in appropriately selected group of patients, who may not want to continue PPI long term,” they concluded.
The authors of the study disclosed no external funding. Dr. Ketwaroo has no relevant financial disclosures, although he is on the editorial advisory board for GI & Hepatology News.
This article was updated May 6, 2021.
In patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a procedure known as endoscopic full-thickness plication (EFTP) – performed with the novel GERD-X device – improved both symptoms and quality of life, compared with a sham procedure. It also had few side effects and a short procedure time, according to a new randomized, controlled trial.
“It seems like it is a quick, easy-to-use procedure,” Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, commented in an interview. Dr. Ketwaroo was not involved in the study.
“Even though the objective measures were not as good as perhaps you had hoped, the subjective outcomes were good. [And] it seems that it may have more of a long-term benefit, compared to some of the other endoscopic procedures. But that wasn’t a [primary] outcome of the study, and we still need more long-term studies to figure that out,” he added.
The research, led by Rakesh Kalapala, MD, DNB, and D. Nageshwar Reddy, MD, FACG, of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, appeared in Gut.
The fact that the EFTP procedure is relatively simple could reduce cost and ease the learning curve, which in turn could broaden accessibility if more gastroenterologists are trained on it.
“There are not many gastroenterologists who offer endoscopic approaches to GERD therapy, so increasing that cohort [could] potentially have a huge impact given the number of patients who have GERD in this country, and especially given the rising and persistent concern over long-term use of PPIs,” said Dr. Ketwaroo.
Addressing the drawbacks of long-term PPI use
Although PPIs are the most effective medical therapy for GERD, there are concerns that long-term use could increase the risk of acute and chronic kidney disease, hypomagnesaemia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and osteoporotic fractures. Surgical antireflux interventions are effective but may lead to dysphagia, bloating, and diarrhea.
EFTP applies transmural sutures to the gastroesophageal junction to strengthen the valvular mechanism, which reduces reflux. While the preponderance of published evidence supports the Esophyx device (EndoGastric Solutions), which has a 70% efficacy rate and few adverse events in one analysis, it requires advanced training and general anesthesia and takes 45-100 minutes.
“Endoscopic fundoplication is a minimally invasive antireflux therapy in patients with PPI dependence who refuse surgery; however, the majority of the endoscopic devices are cumbersome to use and robust data on their long-term efficacy are lacking,” Dr. Kalapala and colleagues noted in their new paper.
In 2014, the German company G-Surg introduced a novel endoscopic plication device called GERD-X. A prospective, single-arm study had shown efficacy in both patients taking PPIs and those with refractory GERD.
A closer look at the device
To bolster that evidence, Dr. Kalapala and colleagues conducted this new single-center, randomized, sham-controlled trial with 70 enrollees with PPI-dependent GERD, of which 70% had nonerosive reflux disease (mean DeMeester score, 18.9). The median participant age was 36 years, and 71.4% were male. The average procedure time was 17.4 minutes.
Of the subjects in the treatment group, 65.7% achieved at least a 50% improvement in GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) after 3 months, compared with 2.9% in the sham group (P < .001). The median percentage improvement in GERD-HRQL score was higher in the treatment group at 6 months (81.4% vs. 8.0%; P < .001) and at 12 months (92.3% vs. 9.1%; P < .001). Similar improvements were seen at 6 months and 12 months in heartburn symptom score (75.0% vs. 13.0% and 89.7% vs. 15.4%, respectively; P < .001 for both) and regurgitation symptom score (96.2% vs. 6.9% and 100% vs. 3.4%, respectively; P < .001 for both). At 12 months, 62.8% of the treatment group no longer took PPIs, compared with 11.4% of the sham group (P < .001).
Objective measures of improvement were more modest. The treatment arm trended toward a reduction in esophageal acid exposure from baseline at 3 and 12 months, but the difference was not statistically significant. The median percentage of time with esophageal pH below 4 and the DeMeester score were similar between the groups at 3 and 12 months. The researchers also noted trends toward fewer reflux events in 24 hours in the treatment group at 6 months (P = .072) and 12 months (P = .051).
The treatment group had fewer non–acid reflux episodes at 12 months versus baseline (P = .038), but there was no difference in the median number of acid reflux episodes in 24 hours.
“Our study found endoscopic full-thickness fundoplication, using a novel device, was safe and significantly improved GERD-related quality of life and severity of reflux symptoms at short and long terms, compared with a sham procedure,” wrote the authors.
“This endoluminal procedure with a short operating time and very few side effects is a promising alternative option to surgery in appropriately selected group of patients, who may not want to continue PPI long term,” they concluded.
The authors of the study disclosed no external funding. Dr. Ketwaroo has no relevant financial disclosures, although he is on the editorial advisory board for GI & Hepatology News.
This article was updated May 6, 2021.
In patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–dependent gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a procedure known as endoscopic full-thickness plication (EFTP) – performed with the novel GERD-X device – improved both symptoms and quality of life, compared with a sham procedure. It also had few side effects and a short procedure time, according to a new randomized, controlled trial.
“It seems like it is a quick, easy-to-use procedure,” Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, commented in an interview. Dr. Ketwaroo was not involved in the study.
“Even though the objective measures were not as good as perhaps you had hoped, the subjective outcomes were good. [And] it seems that it may have more of a long-term benefit, compared to some of the other endoscopic procedures. But that wasn’t a [primary] outcome of the study, and we still need more long-term studies to figure that out,” he added.
The research, led by Rakesh Kalapala, MD, DNB, and D. Nageshwar Reddy, MD, FACG, of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, appeared in Gut.
The fact that the EFTP procedure is relatively simple could reduce cost and ease the learning curve, which in turn could broaden accessibility if more gastroenterologists are trained on it.
“There are not many gastroenterologists who offer endoscopic approaches to GERD therapy, so increasing that cohort [could] potentially have a huge impact given the number of patients who have GERD in this country, and especially given the rising and persistent concern over long-term use of PPIs,” said Dr. Ketwaroo.
Addressing the drawbacks of long-term PPI use
Although PPIs are the most effective medical therapy for GERD, there are concerns that long-term use could increase the risk of acute and chronic kidney disease, hypomagnesaemia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and osteoporotic fractures. Surgical antireflux interventions are effective but may lead to dysphagia, bloating, and diarrhea.
EFTP applies transmural sutures to the gastroesophageal junction to strengthen the valvular mechanism, which reduces reflux. While the preponderance of published evidence supports the Esophyx device (EndoGastric Solutions), which has a 70% efficacy rate and few adverse events in one analysis, it requires advanced training and general anesthesia and takes 45-100 minutes.
“Endoscopic fundoplication is a minimally invasive antireflux therapy in patients with PPI dependence who refuse surgery; however, the majority of the endoscopic devices are cumbersome to use and robust data on their long-term efficacy are lacking,” Dr. Kalapala and colleagues noted in their new paper.
In 2014, the German company G-Surg introduced a novel endoscopic plication device called GERD-X. A prospective, single-arm study had shown efficacy in both patients taking PPIs and those with refractory GERD.
A closer look at the device
To bolster that evidence, Dr. Kalapala and colleagues conducted this new single-center, randomized, sham-controlled trial with 70 enrollees with PPI-dependent GERD, of which 70% had nonerosive reflux disease (mean DeMeester score, 18.9). The median participant age was 36 years, and 71.4% were male. The average procedure time was 17.4 minutes.
Of the subjects in the treatment group, 65.7% achieved at least a 50% improvement in GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL) after 3 months, compared with 2.9% in the sham group (P < .001). The median percentage improvement in GERD-HRQL score was higher in the treatment group at 6 months (81.4% vs. 8.0%; P < .001) and at 12 months (92.3% vs. 9.1%; P < .001). Similar improvements were seen at 6 months and 12 months in heartburn symptom score (75.0% vs. 13.0% and 89.7% vs. 15.4%, respectively; P < .001 for both) and regurgitation symptom score (96.2% vs. 6.9% and 100% vs. 3.4%, respectively; P < .001 for both). At 12 months, 62.8% of the treatment group no longer took PPIs, compared with 11.4% of the sham group (P < .001).
Objective measures of improvement were more modest. The treatment arm trended toward a reduction in esophageal acid exposure from baseline at 3 and 12 months, but the difference was not statistically significant. The median percentage of time with esophageal pH below 4 and the DeMeester score were similar between the groups at 3 and 12 months. The researchers also noted trends toward fewer reflux events in 24 hours in the treatment group at 6 months (P = .072) and 12 months (P = .051).
The treatment group had fewer non–acid reflux episodes at 12 months versus baseline (P = .038), but there was no difference in the median number of acid reflux episodes in 24 hours.
“Our study found endoscopic full-thickness fundoplication, using a novel device, was safe and significantly improved GERD-related quality of life and severity of reflux symptoms at short and long terms, compared with a sham procedure,” wrote the authors.
“This endoluminal procedure with a short operating time and very few side effects is a promising alternative option to surgery in appropriately selected group of patients, who may not want to continue PPI long term,” they concluded.
The authors of the study disclosed no external funding. Dr. Ketwaroo has no relevant financial disclosures, although he is on the editorial advisory board for GI & Hepatology News.
This article was updated May 6, 2021.
FROM GUT
Survey offers a snapshot of nationwide COVID-19 discharge practices
Discharge practices for COVID-19 patients vary widely at the nation’s academic medical centers, but there are some areas of strong concordance, especially related to procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission of COVID-19.
In addition, most sites use some form of clinical criteria to determine discharge readiness, S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, SFHM, said on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Those rank among the key findings from of a survey of 22 academic medical centers conducted by the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN), which was launched in 2011 as a way to advance hospital medicine through rigorous research to improve the care of hospitalized patients.
“When COVID came and changed all of our lives, HOMERuN was well positioned to examine the state of practices in member hospitals, and we set out some key principles,” Dr. Greysen said. “First, we wanted to respect the challenges and needs of sites during this extraordinary time. We wanted to support speed and flexibility from our study design to get results to the front lines as quickly as possible. Therefore, we used lightweight research methods such as cross-sectional surveys, periodic evaluations, and we use the data to support operational needs. We have developed linkages to more granular datasets such as electronic health records, but our focus to date has been mostly on the frontline experience of hospitalists and gathering consensus around clinical practice, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.”
In March and April of 2020, Dr. Greysen and colleagues collected and analyzed any discharge protocols, policies, or other documents from 22 academic medical centers. From this they created a follow-up survey containing 21 different domains that was administered to the same institutions in May and June of 2020. “It’s not meant to be a completely comprehensive list, but these 21 domains were the themes we saw coming out of these discharge practice documents,” explained Dr. Greysen, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, which is one of the participating sites.
Next, the researchers used a concordance table to help them keep track of which institution responded in which way for which domain, and they bundled the discharge criteria into five higher order domains: procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission; clinical criteria for discharge; nonclinical/nonisolation issues; discharge to settings other than home, and postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.
In the procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission domain, Dr. Greysen reported that the use of isolation guidelines was the area of greatest consensus in the study, with 19 of 22 sites (86%) citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 7 (32%) also citing state department of health guidance. “Specifically, most sites included the ability to socially isolate at home (until no longer necessary per CDC guidance) as part of the criteria,” he said. Most sites (73%) required use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in transportation from the hospital and 73% gave masks and other PPE for use at home.
Session copresenter Maralyssa A. Bann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, another participating site, pointed out that the institutions surveyed look to the CDC as being “the single source of truth on discharge practices,” specifically material for health care workers related to discharging COVID-19 patients. “Notable specific recent updates include the recommendation that meeting criteria for discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions is not a prerequisite for discharge from a health care facility,” Dr. Bann said. “Also, as of August 2020, use of symptom-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions instead of repeat testing is recommended for most patients. This is a rapidly evolving area.”
Practices in the clinical criteria for discharge domain varied by site. Slightly more than one-quarter of sites (27%) gave little or no guidance by using terms like “use clinical judgment,” while 14% gave very specific detailed algorithms. “Most sites fell in between and gave some parameters, usually along the lines of symptom improvement, temperature, and oxygen requirement, but the criteria were variable,” Dr. Greysen said. “For example, in terms of temperature, many sites said that patients should be afebrile for a specific length of time, 24-72 hours, while other sites simply said afebrile at discharge.” Meanwhile, the following criteria for discharge were addressed by relatively few sites: lab criteria (36%), age (36%), high-risk comorbidities (32%), or ID consultation (18%).
In the nonclinical/nonisolation domain, 73% of sites assessed for level of support available, though this was variably defined. Slightly more than half (55%) specifically assessed activities of daily living or the presence of a caregiver to assist, while 18% reported addressing durable medical equipment such as beds and toilets and access to food or medication supplies in ways that were specific for COVID-19 patients.
In the discharge to settings other than home domain, 77% of sites addressed discharge to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term care, although specific requirements were often set by the accepting facilities. In addition, 65% of sites gave specific guidance for patients experiencing unstable housing/homelessness, usually recommending a respite facility or similar, and 59% addressed congregate/shared living spaces such as assisted living facilities. “Often the strictest criteria [two negative COVID tests] were applied to discharge to these types of settings,” he said.
In the postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up domain, 73% of sites reported providing home monitoring and/or virtual follow-up care. Programs ranged from daily texting via SMS or patient portals, RN phone calls, home pulse oximeters, and/or thermometers. In addition, 55% of sites had created COVID-specific brochures, discharge instructions, and other materials to standardize content such as use of PPE, travel restrictions, social distancing, signs and symptoms to watch out for, and what to do if worsening clinically.
Dr. Bann predicted future trends on the heels of the HOMERuN survey, including the development of more evidence and consensus related to discharge criteria. “Clarity is needed specifically around hypoxemia at rest/on ambulation, as well as more flexible criteria for oxygen supplementation,” she said. “We also think there will be a considerable amount of growth in posthospitalization monitoring and support, in particular home-based and virtual/remote monitoring.”
HOMERuN is supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the AAMC, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Clinical Data Research Networks, the Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Greysen and Dr. Bann reported having no financial disclosures.
Discharge practices for COVID-19 patients vary widely at the nation’s academic medical centers, but there are some areas of strong concordance, especially related to procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission of COVID-19.
In addition, most sites use some form of clinical criteria to determine discharge readiness, S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, SFHM, said on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Those rank among the key findings from of a survey of 22 academic medical centers conducted by the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN), which was launched in 2011 as a way to advance hospital medicine through rigorous research to improve the care of hospitalized patients.
“When COVID came and changed all of our lives, HOMERuN was well positioned to examine the state of practices in member hospitals, and we set out some key principles,” Dr. Greysen said. “First, we wanted to respect the challenges and needs of sites during this extraordinary time. We wanted to support speed and flexibility from our study design to get results to the front lines as quickly as possible. Therefore, we used lightweight research methods such as cross-sectional surveys, periodic evaluations, and we use the data to support operational needs. We have developed linkages to more granular datasets such as electronic health records, but our focus to date has been mostly on the frontline experience of hospitalists and gathering consensus around clinical practice, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.”
In March and April of 2020, Dr. Greysen and colleagues collected and analyzed any discharge protocols, policies, or other documents from 22 academic medical centers. From this they created a follow-up survey containing 21 different domains that was administered to the same institutions in May and June of 2020. “It’s not meant to be a completely comprehensive list, but these 21 domains were the themes we saw coming out of these discharge practice documents,” explained Dr. Greysen, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, which is one of the participating sites.
Next, the researchers used a concordance table to help them keep track of which institution responded in which way for which domain, and they bundled the discharge criteria into five higher order domains: procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission; clinical criteria for discharge; nonclinical/nonisolation issues; discharge to settings other than home, and postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.
In the procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission domain, Dr. Greysen reported that the use of isolation guidelines was the area of greatest consensus in the study, with 19 of 22 sites (86%) citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 7 (32%) also citing state department of health guidance. “Specifically, most sites included the ability to socially isolate at home (until no longer necessary per CDC guidance) as part of the criteria,” he said. Most sites (73%) required use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in transportation from the hospital and 73% gave masks and other PPE for use at home.
Session copresenter Maralyssa A. Bann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, another participating site, pointed out that the institutions surveyed look to the CDC as being “the single source of truth on discharge practices,” specifically material for health care workers related to discharging COVID-19 patients. “Notable specific recent updates include the recommendation that meeting criteria for discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions is not a prerequisite for discharge from a health care facility,” Dr. Bann said. “Also, as of August 2020, use of symptom-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions instead of repeat testing is recommended for most patients. This is a rapidly evolving area.”
Practices in the clinical criteria for discharge domain varied by site. Slightly more than one-quarter of sites (27%) gave little or no guidance by using terms like “use clinical judgment,” while 14% gave very specific detailed algorithms. “Most sites fell in between and gave some parameters, usually along the lines of symptom improvement, temperature, and oxygen requirement, but the criteria were variable,” Dr. Greysen said. “For example, in terms of temperature, many sites said that patients should be afebrile for a specific length of time, 24-72 hours, while other sites simply said afebrile at discharge.” Meanwhile, the following criteria for discharge were addressed by relatively few sites: lab criteria (36%), age (36%), high-risk comorbidities (32%), or ID consultation (18%).
In the nonclinical/nonisolation domain, 73% of sites assessed for level of support available, though this was variably defined. Slightly more than half (55%) specifically assessed activities of daily living or the presence of a caregiver to assist, while 18% reported addressing durable medical equipment such as beds and toilets and access to food or medication supplies in ways that were specific for COVID-19 patients.
In the discharge to settings other than home domain, 77% of sites addressed discharge to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term care, although specific requirements were often set by the accepting facilities. In addition, 65% of sites gave specific guidance for patients experiencing unstable housing/homelessness, usually recommending a respite facility or similar, and 59% addressed congregate/shared living spaces such as assisted living facilities. “Often the strictest criteria [two negative COVID tests] were applied to discharge to these types of settings,” he said.
In the postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up domain, 73% of sites reported providing home monitoring and/or virtual follow-up care. Programs ranged from daily texting via SMS or patient portals, RN phone calls, home pulse oximeters, and/or thermometers. In addition, 55% of sites had created COVID-specific brochures, discharge instructions, and other materials to standardize content such as use of PPE, travel restrictions, social distancing, signs and symptoms to watch out for, and what to do if worsening clinically.
Dr. Bann predicted future trends on the heels of the HOMERuN survey, including the development of more evidence and consensus related to discharge criteria. “Clarity is needed specifically around hypoxemia at rest/on ambulation, as well as more flexible criteria for oxygen supplementation,” she said. “We also think there will be a considerable amount of growth in posthospitalization monitoring and support, in particular home-based and virtual/remote monitoring.”
HOMERuN is supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the AAMC, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Clinical Data Research Networks, the Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Greysen and Dr. Bann reported having no financial disclosures.
Discharge practices for COVID-19 patients vary widely at the nation’s academic medical centers, but there are some areas of strong concordance, especially related to procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission of COVID-19.
In addition, most sites use some form of clinical criteria to determine discharge readiness, S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, SFHM, said on May 5 at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Those rank among the key findings from of a survey of 22 academic medical centers conducted by the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN), which was launched in 2011 as a way to advance hospital medicine through rigorous research to improve the care of hospitalized patients.
“When COVID came and changed all of our lives, HOMERuN was well positioned to examine the state of practices in member hospitals, and we set out some key principles,” Dr. Greysen said. “First, we wanted to respect the challenges and needs of sites during this extraordinary time. We wanted to support speed and flexibility from our study design to get results to the front lines as quickly as possible. Therefore, we used lightweight research methods such as cross-sectional surveys, periodic evaluations, and we use the data to support operational needs. We have developed linkages to more granular datasets such as electronic health records, but our focus to date has been mostly on the frontline experience of hospitalists and gathering consensus around clinical practice, especially in the early stages of the pandemic.”
In March and April of 2020, Dr. Greysen and colleagues collected and analyzed any discharge protocols, policies, or other documents from 22 academic medical centers. From this they created a follow-up survey containing 21 different domains that was administered to the same institutions in May and June of 2020. “It’s not meant to be a completely comprehensive list, but these 21 domains were the themes we saw coming out of these discharge practice documents,” explained Dr. Greysen, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, which is one of the participating sites.
Next, the researchers used a concordance table to help them keep track of which institution responded in which way for which domain, and they bundled the discharge criteria into five higher order domains: procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission; clinical criteria for discharge; nonclinical/nonisolation issues; discharge to settings other than home, and postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.
In the procedures for isolation and mitigating transmission domain, Dr. Greysen reported that the use of isolation guidelines was the area of greatest consensus in the study, with 19 of 22 sites (86%) citing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 7 (32%) also citing state department of health guidance. “Specifically, most sites included the ability to socially isolate at home (until no longer necessary per CDC guidance) as part of the criteria,” he said. Most sites (73%) required use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in transportation from the hospital and 73% gave masks and other PPE for use at home.
Session copresenter Maralyssa A. Bann, MD, a hospitalist at the University of Washington/Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, another participating site, pointed out that the institutions surveyed look to the CDC as being “the single source of truth on discharge practices,” specifically material for health care workers related to discharging COVID-19 patients. “Notable specific recent updates include the recommendation that meeting criteria for discontinuation of Transmission-Based Precautions is not a prerequisite for discharge from a health care facility,” Dr. Bann said. “Also, as of August 2020, use of symptom-based strategy for discontinuation of isolation precautions instead of repeat testing is recommended for most patients. This is a rapidly evolving area.”
Practices in the clinical criteria for discharge domain varied by site. Slightly more than one-quarter of sites (27%) gave little or no guidance by using terms like “use clinical judgment,” while 14% gave very specific detailed algorithms. “Most sites fell in between and gave some parameters, usually along the lines of symptom improvement, temperature, and oxygen requirement, but the criteria were variable,” Dr. Greysen said. “For example, in terms of temperature, many sites said that patients should be afebrile for a specific length of time, 24-72 hours, while other sites simply said afebrile at discharge.” Meanwhile, the following criteria for discharge were addressed by relatively few sites: lab criteria (36%), age (36%), high-risk comorbidities (32%), or ID consultation (18%).
In the nonclinical/nonisolation domain, 73% of sites assessed for level of support available, though this was variably defined. Slightly more than half (55%) specifically assessed activities of daily living or the presence of a caregiver to assist, while 18% reported addressing durable medical equipment such as beds and toilets and access to food or medication supplies in ways that were specific for COVID-19 patients.
In the discharge to settings other than home domain, 77% of sites addressed discharge to skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term care, although specific requirements were often set by the accepting facilities. In addition, 65% of sites gave specific guidance for patients experiencing unstable housing/homelessness, usually recommending a respite facility or similar, and 59% addressed congregate/shared living spaces such as assisted living facilities. “Often the strictest criteria [two negative COVID tests] were applied to discharge to these types of settings,” he said.
In the postdischarge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up domain, 73% of sites reported providing home monitoring and/or virtual follow-up care. Programs ranged from daily texting via SMS or patient portals, RN phone calls, home pulse oximeters, and/or thermometers. In addition, 55% of sites had created COVID-specific brochures, discharge instructions, and other materials to standardize content such as use of PPE, travel restrictions, social distancing, signs and symptoms to watch out for, and what to do if worsening clinically.
Dr. Bann predicted future trends on the heels of the HOMERuN survey, including the development of more evidence and consensus related to discharge criteria. “Clarity is needed specifically around hypoxemia at rest/on ambulation, as well as more flexible criteria for oxygen supplementation,” she said. “We also think there will be a considerable amount of growth in posthospitalization monitoring and support, in particular home-based and virtual/remote monitoring.”
HOMERuN is supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the AAMC, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Clinical Data Research Networks, the Patient-Powered Research Networks, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Greysen and Dr. Bann reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM SHM CONVERGE 2021
Porous pill printing and prognostic poop
Printing meds per patient
What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.
Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.
Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.
Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.
Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
It’s hip to be Pfizered
COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?
Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.
There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.
For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).
And yes, we are checking on that last one.
Allergies stink!
A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.
That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.
Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.
Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.
Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites
Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.
Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.
Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.
We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
Printing meds per patient
What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.
Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.
Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.
Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.
Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
It’s hip to be Pfizered
COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?
Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.
There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.
For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).
And yes, we are checking on that last one.
Allergies stink!
A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.
That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.
Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.
Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.
Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites
Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.
Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.
Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.
We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
Printing meds per patient
What if there was a way to get exact doses of a medication, tailored specifically for each and every patient that needed it? Well, apparently it’s as easy as getting them out of a printer.
Researchers from the University of East Anglia in England may have found a new method to do just that.
Currently, medicine is “manufactured in ‘one-size-fits-all’ fashion,” said Dr. Sheng Qi, the research lead. But no patient is exactly the same, so why shouldn’t their medications be just as unique? Research on pharmaceutical 3D printing has been developing over the past 5 years, with the most common method requiring the drug to be put into “spaghetti-like filaments” before printing.
Dr. Qi and his team developed a process that bypasses the filaments, allowing them to 3D-print pills with varied porous structures that can regulate the rate of release of the drug into the body. This could be revolutionary for elderly patients and patients with complicated conditions – who often take many different drugs – to ensure more accurate doses that provide maximum benefits and minimal adverse effects.
Just as a custom-tailored suit perfectly fits the body for which it was made, the ability to tailor medication could have the same effect on a patient’s health. The only difference is what’s coming through the printer would be pills, not fabric.
It’s hip to be Pfizered
COVID-19 vaccination levels are rising, but we’ve heard a rumor that some people are still a bit reticent to participate. So how can physicians get more people to come in for a shot?
Make sure that they’re giving patients the right vaccine, for one thing. And by “right” vaccine, we mean, of course, the cool vaccine. Yes, the Internet has decided that the Pfizer vaccine is cooler than the others, according to the Atlantic.
There is, it seems, such a thing as “Pfizer superiority complex,” the article noted, while adding that, “on TikTok, hundreds of videos use a soundtrack of a woman explaining – slowly, voice full of disdain, like the rudest preschool teacher on Earth – ‘Only hot people get the Pfizer vaccine.’ ” A reporter from Slate was welcomed “to the ruling class” after sharing her upcoming Pfizer vaccination.
For the ultimate test of coolness, we surveyed the LOTME staff about the COVID-19 vaccines they had received. The results? Two Pfizers (coincidentally, the only two who knew what the hell TikTok is), one Moderna, one Johnson & Johnson, and one Godbold’s Vegetable Balsam (coincidentally, the same one who told us to get off his lawn).
And yes, we are checking on that last one.
Allergies stink!
A baby’s first bowel movement might mean more than just being the first of many diaper changes.
That particular bowel movement, called meconium, is a mixture of materials that have gone into a baby’s mouth late in the pregnancy, such as skin cells and amniotic fluid. Sounds lovely, right? The contents also include certain biochemicals and gut bacteria, and a lack of these can show an increased risk of allergies, eczema, and asthma.
Studies show that certain gut bacteria actually teach the immune system to accept compounds that are not harmful. Since allergies and other conditions are caused by a person’s immune system telling them harmless compounds are bad, it makes sense that lacking gut bacteria might show potential for developing such conditions.
Charisse Petersen, a researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, told NewScientist that parents could help decrease the development of allergies by not giving their children antibiotics that aren’t necessary and by letting kids play outside more.
Tom Marrs of King’s College London even noted that having a dog in the house is linked to a lower risk of allergies, so it might be time to get that puppy that the kids have been begging you for all through the pandemic.
Indiana Jones and the outhouse of parasites
Some archaeological finds are more impressive than others. Sometimes you find evidence of some long-lost civilization, sometimes you find a 200-year-old outhouse. That was the case with an outhouse buried near Dartmouth College that belonged to Mill Olcott, a wealthy businessman and politician who was a graduate of the college, and his family.
Now, that’s not particularly medically interesting, but the contents of the outhouse were very well preserved. That treasure trove included some fecal samples, and that’s where the story gets good, since they were preserved enough to be analyzed for parasites. Now, researchers know that parasites were very common in urban areas back in those days, when medicinal knowledge and sanitation were still deep in the dark ages, but whether or not people who lived in rural areas, wealthy or not, had them as well was a mystery.
Of course, 200-year-old poop is 200-year-old poop, so, in a task we wouldn’t envy anyone, the samples were rehydrated and run through several sieves to isolate the ancient goodies within. When all was said and done, both tapeworm and whipworm eggs were found, a surprise considering parasitic preference for warmer environments – not something northern New England is known for. But don’t forget, parasites can be your friend, too.
We will probably never know just which member of the Olcott household the poop belonged to, but the researchers noted that it was almost certain the entire house was infected. They added that, without proper infrastructure, even wealth was unable to protect people from disease. Hmm, we can’t think of any relevance that has in today’s world. Nope, absolutely none, since our health infrastructure is literally without flaw.
Multidisciplinary approach touted for atopic dermatitis
researchers say.
“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.
Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.
The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.
“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.
He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.
To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.
- Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
- In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
- Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
- Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
- Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.
The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.
Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”
In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.
Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.
Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.
“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”
Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.
However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”
Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers say.
“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.
Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.
The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.
“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.
He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.
To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.
- Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
- In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
- Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
- Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
- Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.
The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.
Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”
In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.
Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.
Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.
“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”
Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.
However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”
Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers say.
“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.
At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.
Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.
The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.
“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.
He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.
To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.
- Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
- In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
- Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
- Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
- Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.
The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.
Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”
In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.
Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.
Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.
“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”
Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.
However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”
Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.