Unlike previous studies focused on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in ambulatory care office visits, Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, and associates have uncovered evidence of the overall benefit influenza vaccines play in reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits in pediatric influenza patients.

Yarinca/istockphoto

“Our data provide important VE estimates against severe influenza in children,” the researchers noted in Pediatrics, adding that the findings “provide important evidence supporting the annual recommendation that all children 6 months and older should receive influenza vaccination.”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues collected ongoing surveillance data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), which is a network of pediatric hospitals across seven cities, including Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; and Seattle. The influenza season encompassed the period Nov. 7, 2018 to June 21, 2019.

A total of 2,748 hospitalized children and 2,676 children who had completed ED visits that did not lead to hospitalization were included. Once those under 6 months were excluded, 1,792 hospitalized children were included in the VE analysis; of these, 226 (13%) tested positive for influenza infection, including 211 (93%) with influenza A viruses and 15 (7%) with influenza B viruses. Fully 1,611 of the patients (90%), had verified vaccine status, while 181 (10%) had solely parental reported vaccine status. The researchers reported 88 (5%) of the patients received mechanical ventilation and 7 (<1%) died.

Most noteworthy, the researchers observed a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations by 41% in children vaccinated against the flu. They further estimated a significant reduction in hospitalizations linked to A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, even in the presence of circulating A(H3N2) viruses that differed from the A(H3N2) vaccine component.

Studies from other countries during the same time period showed that while “significant protection against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations among children infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses” was observed, the same could not be said for protection against A(H3N2) viruses, which varied among pediatric outpatients in the United States (24%), in England (17% outpatient; 31% inpatient), Europe (46%), and Canada (48%). They explained that such variation in vaccine protection is multifactorial, and includes virus-, host-, and environment-related factors. They also noted that regional variations in circulating viruses, host factors including age, imprinting, and previous vaccination could explain the study’s finding of vaccine protection against both A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses.

When comparing VE estimates between ED visits and hospitalizations, the researchers observed one significant difference, that “hospitalized children likely represent more medically complex patients, with 58% having underlying medical conditions and 38% reporting at lease one hospitalization in the past year, compared with 28% and 14% respectively, among ED participants.”

Strengths of the study included the prospective multisite enrollment that provided data across diverse locations and representation from pediatric hospitalizations and ED care, which were not previously strongly represented in the literature. The single-season study with small sample size was considered a limitation, as was the inability to evaluate full and partial vaccine status. Vaccine data also were limited for many of the ED patients observed.

Dr. Campbell and colleagues did caution that while they consider their test-negative design optimal for evaluating both hospitalized and ED patients, they feel their results should not be “interpreted as VE against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits or infections that are not medically attended.”

In a separate interview, Michael E. Pichichero, MD, director of the Rochester General Hospital Research Institute and a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), observed: “There are really no surprises here. A well done contemporary study confirms again the benefits of annual influenza vaccinations for children. Viral coinfections involving SARS-CoV-2 and influenza have been reported from Australia to cause heightened illnesses. That observation provides further impetus for parents to have their children receive influenza vaccinations.”

The researchers cited multiple sources of financial support for their ongoing work, including Sanofi, Quidel, Moderna, Karius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Funding for this study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pichichero said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Campbell AP et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1368.

Unlike previous studies focused on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in ambulatory care office visits, Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, and associates have uncovered evidence of the overall benefit influenza vaccines play in reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits in pediatric influenza patients.

Yarinca/istockphoto

“Our data provide important VE estimates against severe influenza in children,” the researchers noted in Pediatrics, adding that the findings “provide important evidence supporting the annual recommendation that all children 6 months and older should receive influenza vaccination.”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues collected ongoing surveillance data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), which is a network of pediatric hospitals across seven cities, including Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; and Seattle. The influenza season encompassed the period Nov. 7, 2018 to June 21, 2019.

A total of 2,748 hospitalized children and 2,676 children who had completed ED visits that did not lead to hospitalization were included. Once those under 6 months were excluded, 1,792 hospitalized children were included in the VE analysis; of these, 226 (13%) tested positive for influenza infection, including 211 (93%) with influenza A viruses and 15 (7%) with influenza B viruses. Fully 1,611 of the patients (90%), had verified vaccine status, while 181 (10%) had solely parental reported vaccine status. The researchers reported 88 (5%) of the patients received mechanical ventilation and 7 (<1%) died.

Most noteworthy, the researchers observed a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations by 41% in children vaccinated against the flu. They further estimated a significant reduction in hospitalizations linked to A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, even in the presence of circulating A(H3N2) viruses that differed from the A(H3N2) vaccine component.

Studies from other countries during the same time period showed that while “significant protection against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations among children infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses” was observed, the same could not be said for protection against A(H3N2) viruses, which varied among pediatric outpatients in the United States (24%), in England (17% outpatient; 31% inpatient), Europe (46%), and Canada (48%). They explained that such variation in vaccine protection is multifactorial, and includes virus-, host-, and environment-related factors. They also noted that regional variations in circulating viruses, host factors including age, imprinting, and previous vaccination could explain the study’s finding of vaccine protection against both A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses.

When comparing VE estimates between ED visits and hospitalizations, the researchers observed one significant difference, that “hospitalized children likely represent more medically complex patients, with 58% having underlying medical conditions and 38% reporting at lease one hospitalization in the past year, compared with 28% and 14% respectively, among ED participants.”

Strengths of the study included the prospective multisite enrollment that provided data across diverse locations and representation from pediatric hospitalizations and ED care, which were not previously strongly represented in the literature. The single-season study with small sample size was considered a limitation, as was the inability to evaluate full and partial vaccine status. Vaccine data also were limited for many of the ED patients observed.

Dr. Campbell and colleagues did caution that while they consider their test-negative design optimal for evaluating both hospitalized and ED patients, they feel their results should not be “interpreted as VE against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits or infections that are not medically attended.”

In a separate interview, Michael E. Pichichero, MD, director of the Rochester General Hospital Research Institute and a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), observed: “There are really no surprises here. A well done contemporary study confirms again the benefits of annual influenza vaccinations for children. Viral coinfections involving SARS-CoV-2 and influenza have been reported from Australia to cause heightened illnesses. That observation provides further impetus for parents to have their children receive influenza vaccinations.”

The researchers cited multiple sources of financial support for their ongoing work, including Sanofi, Quidel, Moderna, Karius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Funding for this study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pichichero said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Campbell AP et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1368.

Unlike previous studies focused on vaccine effectiveness (VE) in ambulatory care office visits, Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, and associates have uncovered evidence of the overall benefit influenza vaccines play in reducing hospitalizations and emergency department visits in pediatric influenza patients.

Yarinca/istockphoto

“Our data provide important VE estimates against severe influenza in children,” the researchers noted in Pediatrics, adding that the findings “provide important evidence supporting the annual recommendation that all children 6 months and older should receive influenza vaccination.”

Dr. Campbell and colleagues collected ongoing surveillance data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network (NVSN), which is a network of pediatric hospitals across seven cities, including Kansas City, Mo.; Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Pittsburgh; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; and Seattle. The influenza season encompassed the period Nov. 7, 2018 to June 21, 2019.

A total of 2,748 hospitalized children and 2,676 children who had completed ED visits that did not lead to hospitalization were included. Once those under 6 months were excluded, 1,792 hospitalized children were included in the VE analysis; of these, 226 (13%) tested positive for influenza infection, including 211 (93%) with influenza A viruses and 15 (7%) with influenza B viruses. Fully 1,611 of the patients (90%), had verified vaccine status, while 181 (10%) had solely parental reported vaccine status. The researchers reported 88 (5%) of the patients received mechanical ventilation and 7 (<1%) died.

Most noteworthy, the researchers observed a significant reduction in laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations by 41% in children vaccinated against the flu. They further estimated a significant reduction in hospitalizations linked to A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, even in the presence of circulating A(H3N2) viruses that differed from the A(H3N2) vaccine component.

Studies from other countries during the same time period showed that while “significant protection against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations among children infected with A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses” was observed, the same could not be said for protection against A(H3N2) viruses, which varied among pediatric outpatients in the United States (24%), in England (17% outpatient; 31% inpatient), Europe (46%), and Canada (48%). They explained that such variation in vaccine protection is multifactorial, and includes virus-, host-, and environment-related factors. They also noted that regional variations in circulating viruses, host factors including age, imprinting, and previous vaccination could explain the study’s finding of vaccine protection against both A(H1N1)pdm09 and A(H3N2) viruses.

When comparing VE estimates between ED visits and hospitalizations, the researchers observed one significant difference, that “hospitalized children likely represent more medically complex patients, with 58% having underlying medical conditions and 38% reporting at lease one hospitalization in the past year, compared with 28% and 14% respectively, among ED participants.”

Strengths of the study included the prospective multisite enrollment that provided data across diverse locations and representation from pediatric hospitalizations and ED care, which were not previously strongly represented in the literature. The single-season study with small sample size was considered a limitation, as was the inability to evaluate full and partial vaccine status. Vaccine data also were limited for many of the ED patients observed.

Dr. Campbell and colleagues did caution that while they consider their test-negative design optimal for evaluating both hospitalized and ED patients, they feel their results should not be “interpreted as VE against influenza-associated ambulatory care visits or infections that are not medically attended.”

In a separate interview, Michael E. Pichichero, MD, director of the Rochester General Hospital Research Institute and a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), observed: “There are really no surprises here. A well done contemporary study confirms again the benefits of annual influenza vaccinations for children. Viral coinfections involving SARS-CoV-2 and influenza have been reported from Australia to cause heightened illnesses. That observation provides further impetus for parents to have their children receive influenza vaccinations.”

The researchers cited multiple sources of financial support for their ongoing work, including Sanofi, Quidel, Moderna, Karius, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer. Funding for this study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pichichero said he had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Campbell AP et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1368.

Receive $300,000 for your research in health disparities

Applications for the research scholar award are due by Nov. 9, 2020.

The American Gastroenterological Association Research Foundation is pleased to announce an important addition to its prestigious awards portfolio. The AGA Research Scholar Award in Digestive Disease Health Disparities supports early-career faculty dedicated to investigating digestive diseases or disorders that disproportionately affect racial or ethnic minority populations in North America.

Applicants must have a full-time faculty (or equivalent) position and may be performing any type of research (clinical, basic, or translational). Awardees will receive a total of $300,000 over 3 years with funding to commence in July 2021. The deadline to apply is Nov. 9, 2020.

This award is just one example of how AGA is helping to improve patient care for those who need it most. Support AGA Giving Day and learn more about the AGA Equity Project – a multiyear effort spanning all aspects of our organization to achieve equity and eradicate disparities in digestive diseases.
 

Save the date for DDW Virtual™

In 2021, Digestive Disease Week^® moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.

For more than 50 years, the digestive disease community has connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.

Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk. 

DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
 

Virtual 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress® now open for registration

Help forge the roadmap to advance prevention, treatments, and cures for all patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Join the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, AGA, and a true community of friends and colleagues at the premier conference on IBD. The fourth annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, taking place virtually Jan. 21-24, 2021, is now open for registration.

The 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress virtual experience will look a little different but will still bring you all the benefits and quality programming you have come to expect. The Congress will offer 4 days of learning, with more than 100 speakers and more than 200 expected abstracts – all from the safety of your home or work. Now at an even more affordable price, access from anywhere, and the ability to hear from the top leaders in the IBD field – this is a unique opportunity to join us as we come together virtually.

By moving our event online, we can now pass on greater savings to you. Registration for the conference provides you with substantial savings over last year and access to all sessions and networking opportunities. This virtual experience will bring our community of IBD professionals together in an engaging, interactive setting which will include breakout rooms, receptions, and much more.

The 2021 congress committee chair David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, University of Chicago, and cochair Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, lead a faculty that includes thought leaders in the fields of GI, research investigation, surgery, pediatrics, advanced practice, IBD nursing, diet and nutrition, mental health, radiology, pathology, and more.

Register and get inspired to improve skills and patient outcomes, learn practical information you can immediately implement, hear what’s on the horizon in potential IBD treatments, discover fresh perspectives from multidisciplinary faculty and attendees.

You don’t want to miss the 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, connecting virtually on Jan. 21-24, 2021.

Register today to save before the early bird deadline of Friday, Nov. 6.

Learn more, submit an abstract, and register by visiting crohnscolitiscongress.org.
 

AGA releases largest real-world report on safety and effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation

About 90% of patients tracked in the AGA FMT National Registry were cured of Clostridioides difficile infection with few serious side effects.

AGA has released the first results from the NIH-funded AGA Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) National Registry, the largest real-world study on the safety and effectiveness of FMT. Published in Gastroenterology, the registry reported that FMT led to a cure of C. difficile infection in 90% of patients across 20 North American FMT practice sites. Few serious side effects were reported.

“While the value of fecal microbiota transplantation for treating recurrent C. difficile infection is clear from research studies, the potential long-term consequences of altering a patient’s gut microbiota are not fully known,” says Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I. and coprincipal investigator of the AGA FMT National Registry. “Releasing the initial results of the AGA FMT National Registry is an important step toward understanding the true risks and benefits of microbiota therapeutics in a real-world setting.”

This new report details effectiveness and safety outcomes from the first 259 patients enrolled in the registry between December 2017 and September 2019. Almost all participants received FMT using an unknown donor from stool banks. The most common method of FMT delivery was colonoscopy followed by upper endoscopy. Of the 222 participants who returned for the 1-month follow-up, 200 participants (90%) had their C. difficile infection cured with 197 of those requiring only a single FMT. Infections were reported in 11 participants, but only 2 were thought to be possibly related to the procedure. FMT response was deemed durable, with recurrence of C. difficile infection in the 6 months after successful FMT occurring in only 4% of participants. This data includes patients with comorbidities, such as IBD and immunocompromised status, who are typically excluded from FMT clinical trials.

“These initial results show a high success rate of FMT in the real-world setting. We’ll continue to track these patients for 10 years to assess long-term safety, which will be critical to determining the full safety profile of FMT,” added Dr. Kelly.
 

AGA raises concerns about recent executive order

We are speaking out to ensure a brighter and more equitable future.

AGA is concerned by the Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping issued on Sept. 22, 2020. This order, while confirming that training of the federal workforce to create an inclusive workspace is beneficial, also leads to a misguided perception of the purpose and outcomes of this type of training. In addition, it may have unintended ramifications for institutions receiving federal research funding.

We believe it is critical and necessary to understand both the positive and negative realities of our nation’s history, so that together we can forge forward into a brighter, and more equitable future.

As highlighted in AGA’s commentary published in Gastroenterology, AGA believes that equity is defined by fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all, acknowledging that there are historically underserved and underrepresented populations. Equity requires identifying and eliminating barriers that have created unbalanced conditions and prevented the full participation of some groups in order to provide equal opportunity for all groups.

By default, teaching and practicing equity, diversity and inclusion aims not to place any group above or below any other group, or to create division. It rather seeks to achieve fairness and understanding, and fully recognize the dignity of all groups, identities, and individuals.

AGA stands with the Association of American Medical Colleges in our commitment to being a diverse, inclusive, equitable, and antiracist organization.

Our commitment to this issue is manifest in the AGA Equity Project.

Receive $300,000 for your research in health disparities

Applications for the research scholar award are due by Nov. 9, 2020.

The American Gastroenterological Association Research Foundation is pleased to announce an important addition to its prestigious awards portfolio. The AGA Research Scholar Award in Digestive Disease Health Disparities supports early-career faculty dedicated to investigating digestive diseases or disorders that disproportionately affect racial or ethnic minority populations in North America.

Applicants must have a full-time faculty (or equivalent) position and may be performing any type of research (clinical, basic, or translational). Awardees will receive a total of $300,000 over 3 years with funding to commence in July 2021. The deadline to apply is Nov. 9, 2020.

This award is just one example of how AGA is helping to improve patient care for those who need it most. Support AGA Giving Day and learn more about the AGA Equity Project – a multiyear effort spanning all aspects of our organization to achieve equity and eradicate disparities in digestive diseases.
 

Save the date for DDW Virtual™

In 2021, Digestive Disease Week^® moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.

For more than 50 years, the digestive disease community has connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.

Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk. 

DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
 

Virtual 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress® now open for registration

Help forge the roadmap to advance prevention, treatments, and cures for all patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Join the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, AGA, and a true community of friends and colleagues at the premier conference on IBD. The fourth annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, taking place virtually Jan. 21-24, 2021, is now open for registration.

The 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress virtual experience will look a little different but will still bring you all the benefits and quality programming you have come to expect. The Congress will offer 4 days of learning, with more than 100 speakers and more than 200 expected abstracts – all from the safety of your home or work. Now at an even more affordable price, access from anywhere, and the ability to hear from the top leaders in the IBD field – this is a unique opportunity to join us as we come together virtually.

By moving our event online, we can now pass on greater savings to you. Registration for the conference provides you with substantial savings over last year and access to all sessions and networking opportunities. This virtual experience will bring our community of IBD professionals together in an engaging, interactive setting which will include breakout rooms, receptions, and much more.

The 2021 congress committee chair David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, University of Chicago, and cochair Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, lead a faculty that includes thought leaders in the fields of GI, research investigation, surgery, pediatrics, advanced practice, IBD nursing, diet and nutrition, mental health, radiology, pathology, and more.

Register and get inspired to improve skills and patient outcomes, learn practical information you can immediately implement, hear what’s on the horizon in potential IBD treatments, discover fresh perspectives from multidisciplinary faculty and attendees.

You don’t want to miss the 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, connecting virtually on Jan. 21-24, 2021.

Register today to save before the early bird deadline of Friday, Nov. 6.

Learn more, submit an abstract, and register by visiting crohnscolitiscongress.org.
 

AGA releases largest real-world report on safety and effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation

About 90% of patients tracked in the AGA FMT National Registry were cured of Clostridioides difficile infection with few serious side effects.

AGA has released the first results from the NIH-funded AGA Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) National Registry, the largest real-world study on the safety and effectiveness of FMT. Published in Gastroenterology, the registry reported that FMT led to a cure of C. difficile infection in 90% of patients across 20 North American FMT practice sites. Few serious side effects were reported.

“While the value of fecal microbiota transplantation for treating recurrent C. difficile infection is clear from research studies, the potential long-term consequences of altering a patient’s gut microbiota are not fully known,” says Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I. and coprincipal investigator of the AGA FMT National Registry. “Releasing the initial results of the AGA FMT National Registry is an important step toward understanding the true risks and benefits of microbiota therapeutics in a real-world setting.”

This new report details effectiveness and safety outcomes from the first 259 patients enrolled in the registry between December 2017 and September 2019. Almost all participants received FMT using an unknown donor from stool banks. The most common method of FMT delivery was colonoscopy followed by upper endoscopy. Of the 222 participants who returned for the 1-month follow-up, 200 participants (90%) had their C. difficile infection cured with 197 of those requiring only a single FMT. Infections were reported in 11 participants, but only 2 were thought to be possibly related to the procedure. FMT response was deemed durable, with recurrence of C. difficile infection in the 6 months after successful FMT occurring in only 4% of participants. This data includes patients with comorbidities, such as IBD and immunocompromised status, who are typically excluded from FMT clinical trials.

“These initial results show a high success rate of FMT in the real-world setting. We’ll continue to track these patients for 10 years to assess long-term safety, which will be critical to determining the full safety profile of FMT,” added Dr. Kelly.
 

AGA raises concerns about recent executive order

We are speaking out to ensure a brighter and more equitable future.

AGA is concerned by the Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping issued on Sept. 22, 2020. This order, while confirming that training of the federal workforce to create an inclusive workspace is beneficial, also leads to a misguided perception of the purpose and outcomes of this type of training. In addition, it may have unintended ramifications for institutions receiving federal research funding.

We believe it is critical and necessary to understand both the positive and negative realities of our nation’s history, so that together we can forge forward into a brighter, and more equitable future.

As highlighted in AGA’s commentary published in Gastroenterology, AGA believes that equity is defined by fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all, acknowledging that there are historically underserved and underrepresented populations. Equity requires identifying and eliminating barriers that have created unbalanced conditions and prevented the full participation of some groups in order to provide equal opportunity for all groups.

By default, teaching and practicing equity, diversity and inclusion aims not to place any group above or below any other group, or to create division. It rather seeks to achieve fairness and understanding, and fully recognize the dignity of all groups, identities, and individuals.

AGA stands with the Association of American Medical Colleges in our commitment to being a diverse, inclusive, equitable, and antiracist organization.

Our commitment to this issue is manifest in the AGA Equity Project.

Receive $300,000 for your research in health disparities

Applications for the research scholar award are due by Nov. 9, 2020.

The American Gastroenterological Association Research Foundation is pleased to announce an important addition to its prestigious awards portfolio. The AGA Research Scholar Award in Digestive Disease Health Disparities supports early-career faculty dedicated to investigating digestive diseases or disorders that disproportionately affect racial or ethnic minority populations in North America.

Applicants must have a full-time faculty (or equivalent) position and may be performing any type of research (clinical, basic, or translational). Awardees will receive a total of $300,000 over 3 years with funding to commence in July 2021. The deadline to apply is Nov. 9, 2020.

This award is just one example of how AGA is helping to improve patient care for those who need it most. Support AGA Giving Day and learn more about the AGA Equity Project – a multiyear effort spanning all aspects of our organization to achieve equity and eradicate disparities in digestive diseases.
 

Save the date for DDW Virtual™

In 2021, Digestive Disease Week^® moves online as a fully virtual meeting with slightly new dates: May 21-23, 2021.

For more than 50 years, the digestive disease community has connected over the best science, education, and networking at DDW, and we’re confident this year will be no exception. In fact, we’re excited by opportunities the new format provides to learn, share, and connect with each other.

Watch the DDW website for more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, check out our FAQs about DDW Virtual™. If you have a question we didn’t answer, please submit a ticket to our help desk. 

DDW is jointly sponsored by AGA, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
 

Virtual 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress® now open for registration

Help forge the roadmap to advance prevention, treatments, and cures for all patients living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Join the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation, AGA, and a true community of friends and colleagues at the premier conference on IBD. The fourth annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, taking place virtually Jan. 21-24, 2021, is now open for registration.

The 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress virtual experience will look a little different but will still bring you all the benefits and quality programming you have come to expect. The Congress will offer 4 days of learning, with more than 100 speakers and more than 200 expected abstracts – all from the safety of your home or work. Now at an even more affordable price, access from anywhere, and the ability to hear from the top leaders in the IBD field – this is a unique opportunity to join us as we come together virtually.

By moving our event online, we can now pass on greater savings to you. Registration for the conference provides you with substantial savings over last year and access to all sessions and networking opportunities. This virtual experience will bring our community of IBD professionals together in an engaging, interactive setting which will include breakout rooms, receptions, and much more.

The 2021 congress committee chair David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, University of Chicago, and cochair Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, lead a faculty that includes thought leaders in the fields of GI, research investigation, surgery, pediatrics, advanced practice, IBD nursing, diet and nutrition, mental health, radiology, pathology, and more.

Register and get inspired to improve skills and patient outcomes, learn practical information you can immediately implement, hear what’s on the horizon in potential IBD treatments, discover fresh perspectives from multidisciplinary faculty and attendees.

You don’t want to miss the 2021 Crohn’s & Colitis Congress, connecting virtually on Jan. 21-24, 2021.

Register today to save before the early bird deadline of Friday, Nov. 6.

Learn more, submit an abstract, and register by visiting crohnscolitiscongress.org.
 

AGA releases largest real-world report on safety and effectiveness of fecal microbiota transplantation

About 90% of patients tracked in the AGA FMT National Registry were cured of Clostridioides difficile infection with few serious side effects.

AGA has released the first results from the NIH-funded AGA Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) National Registry, the largest real-world study on the safety and effectiveness of FMT. Published in Gastroenterology, the registry reported that FMT led to a cure of C. difficile infection in 90% of patients across 20 North American FMT practice sites. Few serious side effects were reported.

“While the value of fecal microbiota transplantation for treating recurrent C. difficile infection is clear from research studies, the potential long-term consequences of altering a patient’s gut microbiota are not fully known,” says Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, associate professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I. and coprincipal investigator of the AGA FMT National Registry. “Releasing the initial results of the AGA FMT National Registry is an important step toward understanding the true risks and benefits of microbiota therapeutics in a real-world setting.”

This new report details effectiveness and safety outcomes from the first 259 patients enrolled in the registry between December 2017 and September 2019. Almost all participants received FMT using an unknown donor from stool banks. The most common method of FMT delivery was colonoscopy followed by upper endoscopy. Of the 222 participants who returned for the 1-month follow-up, 200 participants (90%) had their C. difficile infection cured with 197 of those requiring only a single FMT. Infections were reported in 11 participants, but only 2 were thought to be possibly related to the procedure. FMT response was deemed durable, with recurrence of C. difficile infection in the 6 months after successful FMT occurring in only 4% of participants. This data includes patients with comorbidities, such as IBD and immunocompromised status, who are typically excluded from FMT clinical trials.

“These initial results show a high success rate of FMT in the real-world setting. We’ll continue to track these patients for 10 years to assess long-term safety, which will be critical to determining the full safety profile of FMT,” added Dr. Kelly.
 

AGA raises concerns about recent executive order

We are speaking out to ensure a brighter and more equitable future.

AGA is concerned by the Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping issued on Sept. 22, 2020. This order, while confirming that training of the federal workforce to create an inclusive workspace is beneficial, also leads to a misguided perception of the purpose and outcomes of this type of training. In addition, it may have unintended ramifications for institutions receiving federal research funding.

We believe it is critical and necessary to understand both the positive and negative realities of our nation’s history, so that together we can forge forward into a brighter, and more equitable future.

As highlighted in AGA’s commentary published in Gastroenterology, AGA believes that equity is defined by fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all, acknowledging that there are historically underserved and underrepresented populations. Equity requires identifying and eliminating barriers that have created unbalanced conditions and prevented the full participation of some groups in order to provide equal opportunity for all groups.

By default, teaching and practicing equity, diversity and inclusion aims not to place any group above or below any other group, or to create division. It rather seeks to achieve fairness and understanding, and fully recognize the dignity of all groups, identities, and individuals.

AGA stands with the Association of American Medical Colleges in our commitment to being a diverse, inclusive, equitable, and antiracist organization.

Our commitment to this issue is manifest in the AGA Equity Project.

I read, with great interest, Dr. Farford’s thorough review article “Diabetic retinopathy: the FP’s role in preserving vision” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:120-126). I am a family physician with ophthalmology training. For more than 20 years, I have regularly performed dilated eye exams and reviewed nonmydriatic fundus photos for uninsured patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the community health clinic where I work. The burden of visual loss from poorly controlled diabetes is staggering.

I do, however, want to point out some inaccuracies in the labeling of 2 of the photos included in Table 1.

• The photo labeled “Severe NPDR [nonproliferative DR]”—Figure 1A—actually shows an eye that has been treated with panretinal photocoagulation (multiple laser scars present in all quadrants) with nice regression of DR. Along the superior temporal arcade there is fibrosis, which likely represents regression of vitreal neovascularization or resolution of vitreal hemorrhage. There is little apparent active DR in this photo. The caption indicated the presence of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities; however, while these abnormalities may be present, they are not evident due to the photo resolution.   
• The photo labeled “Proliferative diabetic retinopathy”—Figure 2a—does not show evidence of neovascularization of the disc or the retina. This photo would be more accurately labeled “severe DR with likely clinically significant macular edema.”

The 2 photos shown here, from my photo collection, are perhaps more instructive:

• FIGURE 1B is an example of severe NPDR and maculopathy (this eye has undergone previous panretinal photocoagulation, a treatment option for severe NPDR and proliferative DR [defined as new vessel growth or neovascularization]).
• FIGURE 2b is an example of proliferative DR with vitreal hemorrhage that can lead to irreversible visual loss via traction retinal detachment. 

I appreciate your efforts in publishing Dr. Farford’s article. DR is a broad, complicated topic, and this informative article will help many FPs.

Kenneth Libre, MD
Central City Community Health Center
Salt Lake City, UT

I read, with great interest, Dr. Farford’s thorough review article “Diabetic retinopathy: the FP’s role in preserving vision” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:120-126). I am a family physician with ophthalmology training. For more than 20 years, I have regularly performed dilated eye exams and reviewed nonmydriatic fundus photos for uninsured patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the community health clinic where I work. The burden of visual loss from poorly controlled diabetes is staggering.

I do, however, want to point out some inaccuracies in the labeling of 2 of the photos included in Table 1.

• The photo labeled “Severe NPDR [nonproliferative DR]”—Figure 1A—actually shows an eye that has been treated with panretinal photocoagulation (multiple laser scars present in all quadrants) with nice regression of DR. Along the superior temporal arcade there is fibrosis, which likely represents regression of vitreal neovascularization or resolution of vitreal hemorrhage. There is little apparent active DR in this photo. The caption indicated the presence of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities; however, while these abnormalities may be present, they are not evident due to the photo resolution.   
• The photo labeled “Proliferative diabetic retinopathy”—Figure 2a—does not show evidence of neovascularization of the disc or the retina. This photo would be more accurately labeled “severe DR with likely clinically significant macular edema.”

The 2 photos shown here, from my photo collection, are perhaps more instructive:

• FIGURE 1B is an example of severe NPDR and maculopathy (this eye has undergone previous panretinal photocoagulation, a treatment option for severe NPDR and proliferative DR [defined as new vessel growth or neovascularization]).
• FIGURE 2b is an example of proliferative DR with vitreal hemorrhage that can lead to irreversible visual loss via traction retinal detachment. 

I appreciate your efforts in publishing Dr. Farford’s article. DR is a broad, complicated topic, and this informative article will help many FPs.

Kenneth Libre, MD
Central City Community Health Center
Salt Lake City, UT

I read, with great interest, Dr. Farford’s thorough review article “Diabetic retinopathy: the FP’s role in preserving vision” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:120-126). I am a family physician with ophthalmology training. For more than 20 years, I have regularly performed dilated eye exams and reviewed nonmydriatic fundus photos for uninsured patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the community health clinic where I work. The burden of visual loss from poorly controlled diabetes is staggering.

I do, however, want to point out some inaccuracies in the labeling of 2 of the photos included in Table 1.

• The photo labeled “Severe NPDR [nonproliferative DR]”—Figure 1A—actually shows an eye that has been treated with panretinal photocoagulation (multiple laser scars present in all quadrants) with nice regression of DR. Along the superior temporal arcade there is fibrosis, which likely represents regression of vitreal neovascularization or resolution of vitreal hemorrhage. There is little apparent active DR in this photo. The caption indicated the presence of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities; however, while these abnormalities may be present, they are not evident due to the photo resolution.   
• The photo labeled “Proliferative diabetic retinopathy”—Figure 2a—does not show evidence of neovascularization of the disc or the retina. This photo would be more accurately labeled “severe DR with likely clinically significant macular edema.”

The 2 photos shown here, from my photo collection, are perhaps more instructive:

• FIGURE 1B is an example of severe NPDR and maculopathy (this eye has undergone previous panretinal photocoagulation, a treatment option for severe NPDR and proliferative DR [defined as new vessel growth or neovascularization]).
• FIGURE 2b is an example of proliferative DR with vitreal hemorrhage that can lead to irreversible visual loss via traction retinal detachment. 

I appreciate your efforts in publishing Dr. Farford’s article. DR is a broad, complicated topic, and this informative article will help many FPs.

Kenneth Libre, MD
Central City Community Health Center
Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks to Dr. Linn et al for “Tips and tools for safe opioid prescribing” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:280-292), which addressed an important topic: the risks of, and poor evidence for, chronic opioids in noncancer pain.

We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain.

Pain management is challenging, and it is easy to prescribe opioids from a desire to help. However, we must translate the evidence of chronic opioids’ poor benefit and real harms into practice. No studies show a long-term benefit of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, but they do demonstrate abundant findings of harm. As a family medicine community, we should be practicing at the highest level of evidence and addressing legacy opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain.

Increasing opioid doses for pain only offers short-term benefits and can result in rapid tolerance and withdrawal. We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain. We do not need more ways to initiate opioids or tables on how to dose long-acting opioids—drugs that increase mortality.¹ Let’s stop using poorly validated tools like DIRE to ignore the evidence against opioids (validated with 61 retrospective chart reviews; 81% sensitivity, 76% specificity for predicting efficacy of opioids).^2,3

A 2018 randomized controlled trial of 240 patients with back, knee, or hip osteoarthritis found opioids were not superior to nonopioid medication for pain-related function at 12 months and had more adverse effects.⁴ A 2015 systematic review concluded there was insufficient evidence of long-term benefits of opioids but a dose-dependent risk of serious harm.⁵ Just 1 year of taking low-dose opioids can increase the risk of opioid use disorder by 0.7%, compared with 0.004% with no opioids.⁵

Practical approaches exist. Excellent examples of modern pain care have been developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and state-level initiatives such as the Oregon Pain Guidance.^6-8 All use a similar clinical algorithm (FIGURE). If pain is poorly controlled, a slow medically supervised tapering of opioids is indicated.

Start the pain management conversation by saying: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. I worry that opioids are causing more harm than good now.”

It can be challenging to raise the subject of opioid tapering with patients; I use Stanford’s BRAVO method to guide these conversations.^9,10 At my facility, we are tapering about 50 legacy opioid patients, and most are surprised to find that their pain is the same or better with reduced to no opioids, with fewer adverse effects. Many are happier on sublingual buprenorphine, a safer opioid analgesic.¹¹ The algorithm shown in the FIGURE and the BRAVO method should be more widely used within our specialty for a safe and patient-centered approach to chronic pain. 

Above all, let the patient know that you are with them on this journey to safe pain management. Start the conversation: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. Our understanding of what opioids do for pain has changed, and I worry they’re causing more harm than good now. This is a scary thing to talk about, but I’ll be with you every step of the way.”

Matt Perez, MD
Neighborcare Health
Seattle

Thanks to Dr. Linn et al for “Tips and tools for safe opioid prescribing” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:280-292), which addressed an important topic: the risks of, and poor evidence for, chronic opioids in noncancer pain.

We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain.

Pain management is challenging, and it is easy to prescribe opioids from a desire to help. However, we must translate the evidence of chronic opioids’ poor benefit and real harms into practice. No studies show a long-term benefit of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, but they do demonstrate abundant findings of harm. As a family medicine community, we should be practicing at the highest level of evidence and addressing legacy opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain.

Increasing opioid doses for pain only offers short-term benefits and can result in rapid tolerance and withdrawal. We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain. We do not need more ways to initiate opioids or tables on how to dose long-acting opioids—drugs that increase mortality.¹ Let’s stop using poorly validated tools like DIRE to ignore the evidence against opioids (validated with 61 retrospective chart reviews; 81% sensitivity, 76% specificity for predicting efficacy of opioids).^2,3

A 2018 randomized controlled trial of 240 patients with back, knee, or hip osteoarthritis found opioids were not superior to nonopioid medication for pain-related function at 12 months and had more adverse effects.⁴ A 2015 systematic review concluded there was insufficient evidence of long-term benefits of opioids but a dose-dependent risk of serious harm.⁵ Just 1 year of taking low-dose opioids can increase the risk of opioid use disorder by 0.7%, compared with 0.004% with no opioids.⁵

Practical approaches exist. Excellent examples of modern pain care have been developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and state-level initiatives such as the Oregon Pain Guidance.^6-8 All use a similar clinical algorithm (FIGURE). If pain is poorly controlled, a slow medically supervised tapering of opioids is indicated.

Start the pain management conversation by saying: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. I worry that opioids are causing more harm than good now.”

It can be challenging to raise the subject of opioid tapering with patients; I use Stanford’s BRAVO method to guide these conversations.^9,10 At my facility, we are tapering about 50 legacy opioid patients, and most are surprised to find that their pain is the same or better with reduced to no opioids, with fewer adverse effects. Many are happier on sublingual buprenorphine, a safer opioid analgesic.¹¹ The algorithm shown in the FIGURE and the BRAVO method should be more widely used within our specialty for a safe and patient-centered approach to chronic pain. 

Above all, let the patient know that you are with them on this journey to safe pain management. Start the conversation: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. Our understanding of what opioids do for pain has changed, and I worry they’re causing more harm than good now. This is a scary thing to talk about, but I’ll be with you every step of the way.”

Matt Perez, MD
Neighborcare Health
Seattle

Thanks to Dr. Linn et al for “Tips and tools for safe opioid prescribing” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:280-292), which addressed an important topic: the risks of, and poor evidence for, chronic opioids in noncancer pain.

We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain.

Pain management is challenging, and it is easy to prescribe opioids from a desire to help. However, we must translate the evidence of chronic opioids’ poor benefit and real harms into practice. No studies show a long-term benefit of opioids for chronic noncancer pain, but they do demonstrate abundant findings of harm. As a family medicine community, we should be practicing at the highest level of evidence and addressing legacy opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain.

Increasing opioid doses for pain only offers short-term benefits and can result in rapid tolerance and withdrawal. We should not be starting people on opioids for knee and back pain. We do not need more ways to initiate opioids or tables on how to dose long-acting opioids—drugs that increase mortality.¹ Let’s stop using poorly validated tools like DIRE to ignore the evidence against opioids (validated with 61 retrospective chart reviews; 81% sensitivity, 76% specificity for predicting efficacy of opioids).^2,3

A 2018 randomized controlled trial of 240 patients with back, knee, or hip osteoarthritis found opioids were not superior to nonopioid medication for pain-related function at 12 months and had more adverse effects.⁴ A 2015 systematic review concluded there was insufficient evidence of long-term benefits of opioids but a dose-dependent risk of serious harm.⁵ Just 1 year of taking low-dose opioids can increase the risk of opioid use disorder by 0.7%, compared with 0.004% with no opioids.⁵

Practical approaches exist. Excellent examples of modern pain care have been developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and state-level initiatives such as the Oregon Pain Guidance.^6-8 All use a similar clinical algorithm (FIGURE). If pain is poorly controlled, a slow medically supervised tapering of opioids is indicated.

Start the pain management conversation by saying: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. I worry that opioids are causing more harm than good now.”

It can be challenging to raise the subject of opioid tapering with patients; I use Stanford’s BRAVO method to guide these conversations.^9,10 At my facility, we are tapering about 50 legacy opioid patients, and most are surprised to find that their pain is the same or better with reduced to no opioids, with fewer adverse effects. Many are happier on sublingual buprenorphine, a safer opioid analgesic.¹¹ The algorithm shown in the FIGURE and the BRAVO method should be more widely used within our specialty for a safe and patient-centered approach to chronic pain. 

Above all, let the patient know that you are with them on this journey to safe pain management. Start the conversation: “I’ve been thinking a lot about your chronic pain and how best to help you with it. Our understanding of what opioids do for pain has changed, and I worry they’re causing more harm than good now. This is a scary thing to talk about, but I’ll be with you every step of the way.”

Matt Perez, MD
Neighborcare Health
Seattle

Statistics tell the tale of immigrants in the American health care workforce in broad strokes. In an interview, though, one hospitalist shared the particulars of his professional and personal journey since arriving in the United States from India 15 years ago.

Mihir Patel, MD, MPH, FHM, came to the United States in 2005 to complete a Master’s in Public Health. Fifteen years later, he is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. The paperwork for the application, he said, was completed in 2012. Since then, he’s been renewing his H-1B visa every three years, and he has no expectation that anything will change soon.

“If you are from India, which has a significant backlog of green cards – up to 50 years…you just wait forever,” he said. “Many people even die waiting for their green card to arrive.”

Arriving on a student visa, Dr. Patel completed his MPH in 2008 and began an internal medicine residency that same year, holding a J-1 visa for the 3 years of his US residency program.

“Post-residency, I started working in a rural hospital in an underserved area of northeast Tennessee as a hospitalist,” thus completing the 3 years of service in a rural underserved area that’s a requirement for J-1 visa holders, said Dr. Patel. “I loved this rural community hospital so much that I ended up staying there for 6 years. During my work at this rural hospital, I was able to enjoy the autonomy of managing a small ICU, doing both critical care procedures and management of intubated critical patients while working as a hospitalist,” he said. Dr. Patel served as chief of staff at the hospital for two years, and also served on the board of directors for his 400-physician medical group.

“I was a proud member of this rural community – Rogersville,” said Dr. Patel. Although he and his wife, who was completing her hospitalist residency, lived in Johnson City, Tenn., “I did not mind driving 120 miles round trip every day to go to my small-town hospital for 6 years,” he said.

Spending this time in rural Tennessee allowed Dr. Patel to finish the requirements necessary for the Physician National Interest Waiver and submit his application for permanent residency. The waiver, though, doesn’t give him priority status in the waiting list for permanent residency status.

After a stint in northern California to be closer to extended family, the pull of “beautiful northeast Tennesse and the rural community” was too strong, so Dr. Patel and his family moved back to Johnson City in 2018.

Reauthorizing the H1-B visa program

SHM has been advocating to improve the H1-B visa system for years, Dr. Patel said, The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and the Society is advocating for its passage in the Senate.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386) simplifies the employment-based immigration system by removing per-country caps, converting the employment-based immigration system into a “first-come, first serve” system that does not discriminate on country of origin. The act will also help alleviate the decades-long green card and permanent residency application backlogs.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of action by Congress to reauthorize the physician visa waiver program and expediting physician permanent residency. “This is a crisis and we are all physicians who are ready to serve, regardless of our country of origin. Please let us help this great nation by giving us freedom from visa restrictions and providing security for our families.

“During wartime, all frontline soldiers are naturalized and given citizenship by presidential mandate; this is more than war and we are not asking for citizenship – but at least give us a green card which we have already satisfied all requirements for. If not now, then when?” he asked.

Statistics tell the tale of immigrants in the American health care workforce in broad strokes. In an interview, though, one hospitalist shared the particulars of his professional and personal journey since arriving in the United States from India 15 years ago.

Mihir Patel, MD, MPH, FHM, came to the United States in 2005 to complete a Master’s in Public Health. Fifteen years later, he is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. The paperwork for the application, he said, was completed in 2012. Since then, he’s been renewing his H-1B visa every three years, and he has no expectation that anything will change soon.

“If you are from India, which has a significant backlog of green cards – up to 50 years…you just wait forever,” he said. “Many people even die waiting for their green card to arrive.”

Arriving on a student visa, Dr. Patel completed his MPH in 2008 and began an internal medicine residency that same year, holding a J-1 visa for the 3 years of his US residency program.

“Post-residency, I started working in a rural hospital in an underserved area of northeast Tennessee as a hospitalist,” thus completing the 3 years of service in a rural underserved area that’s a requirement for J-1 visa holders, said Dr. Patel. “I loved this rural community hospital so much that I ended up staying there for 6 years. During my work at this rural hospital, I was able to enjoy the autonomy of managing a small ICU, doing both critical care procedures and management of intubated critical patients while working as a hospitalist,” he said. Dr. Patel served as chief of staff at the hospital for two years, and also served on the board of directors for his 400-physician medical group.

“I was a proud member of this rural community – Rogersville,” said Dr. Patel. Although he and his wife, who was completing her hospitalist residency, lived in Johnson City, Tenn., “I did not mind driving 120 miles round trip every day to go to my small-town hospital for 6 years,” he said.

Spending this time in rural Tennessee allowed Dr. Patel to finish the requirements necessary for the Physician National Interest Waiver and submit his application for permanent residency. The waiver, though, doesn’t give him priority status in the waiting list for permanent residency status.

After a stint in northern California to be closer to extended family, the pull of “beautiful northeast Tennesse and the rural community” was too strong, so Dr. Patel and his family moved back to Johnson City in 2018.

Reauthorizing the H1-B visa program

SHM has been advocating to improve the H1-B visa system for years, Dr. Patel said, The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and the Society is advocating for its passage in the Senate.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386) simplifies the employment-based immigration system by removing per-country caps, converting the employment-based immigration system into a “first-come, first serve” system that does not discriminate on country of origin. The act will also help alleviate the decades-long green card and permanent residency application backlogs.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of action by Congress to reauthorize the physician visa waiver program and expediting physician permanent residency. “This is a crisis and we are all physicians who are ready to serve, regardless of our country of origin. Please let us help this great nation by giving us freedom from visa restrictions and providing security for our families.

“During wartime, all frontline soldiers are naturalized and given citizenship by presidential mandate; this is more than war and we are not asking for citizenship – but at least give us a green card which we have already satisfied all requirements for. If not now, then when?” he asked.

Statistics tell the tale of immigrants in the American health care workforce in broad strokes. In an interview, though, one hospitalist shared the particulars of his professional and personal journey since arriving in the United States from India 15 years ago.

Mihir Patel, MD, MPH, FHM, came to the United States in 2005 to complete a Master’s in Public Health. Fifteen years later, he is still waiting for the green card that signifies U.S. permanent residency status. The paperwork for the application, he said, was completed in 2012. Since then, he’s been renewing his H-1B visa every three years, and he has no expectation that anything will change soon.

“If you are from India, which has a significant backlog of green cards – up to 50 years…you just wait forever,” he said. “Many people even die waiting for their green card to arrive.”

Arriving on a student visa, Dr. Patel completed his MPH in 2008 and began an internal medicine residency that same year, holding a J-1 visa for the 3 years of his US residency program.

“Post-residency, I started working in a rural hospital in an underserved area of northeast Tennessee as a hospitalist,” thus completing the 3 years of service in a rural underserved area that’s a requirement for J-1 visa holders, said Dr. Patel. “I loved this rural community hospital so much that I ended up staying there for 6 years. During my work at this rural hospital, I was able to enjoy the autonomy of managing a small ICU, doing both critical care procedures and management of intubated critical patients while working as a hospitalist,” he said. Dr. Patel served as chief of staff at the hospital for two years, and also served on the board of directors for his 400-physician medical group.

“I was a proud member of this rural community – Rogersville,” said Dr. Patel. Although he and his wife, who was completing her hospitalist residency, lived in Johnson City, Tenn., “I did not mind driving 120 miles round trip every day to go to my small-town hospital for 6 years,” he said.

Spending this time in rural Tennessee allowed Dr. Patel to finish the requirements necessary for the Physician National Interest Waiver and submit his application for permanent residency. The waiver, though, doesn’t give him priority status in the waiting list for permanent residency status.

After a stint in northern California to be closer to extended family, the pull of “beautiful northeast Tennesse and the rural community” was too strong, so Dr. Patel and his family moved back to Johnson City in 2018.

Reauthorizing the H1-B visa program

SHM has been advocating to improve the H1-B visa system for years, Dr. Patel said, The Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and the Society is advocating for its passage in the Senate.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386) simplifies the employment-based immigration system by removing per-country caps, converting the employment-based immigration system into a “first-come, first serve” system that does not discriminate on country of origin. The act will also help alleviate the decades-long green card and permanent residency application backlogs.

Dr. Patel emphasized the importance of action by Congress to reauthorize the physician visa waiver program and expediting physician permanent residency. “This is a crisis and we are all physicians who are ready to serve, regardless of our country of origin. Please let us help this great nation by giving us freedom from visa restrictions and providing security for our families.

“During wartime, all frontline soldiers are naturalized and given citizenship by presidential mandate; this is more than war and we are not asking for citizenship – but at least give us a green card which we have already satisfied all requirements for. If not now, then when?” he asked.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.¹ I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.

The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.² At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.³

Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients.

Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:

1. Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
2. Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
3. Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
4. Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
5. Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.

In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in the United States from March to July 2020, compared with historic norms, with approximately two-thirds directly attributable to COVID-19. However, additional deaths could be indirectly related because people avoided emergency care during the pandemic, new research shows.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 varied by state and phase of the pandemic, as reported in a study from researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University and Yale University that was published online October 12 in JAMA.

Another study published online simultaneously in JAMA took more of an international perspective. Investigators from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University found that in America there were more excess deaths and there was higher all-cause mortality during the pandemic than in 18 other countries.

Although the ongoing number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 continues to garner attention, there can be a lag of weeks or months in how long it takes some public health agencies to update their figures.

“For the public at large, the take-home message is twofold: that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic exceeds publicly reported COVID-19 death counts by 20% and that states that reopened or lifted restrictions early suffered a protracted surge in excess deaths that extended into the summer,” lead author of the US-focused study, Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, told Medscape Medical News.

The take-away for physicians is in the bigger picture – it is likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for deaths from other conditions as well. “Surges in COVID-19 were accompanied by an increase in deaths attributed to other causes, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” said Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at the Center on Society and Health and professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Population Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine in Richmond, Virginia.

The investigators identified 225,530 excess US deaths in the 5 months from March to July. They report that 67% were directly attributable to COVID-19.

Deaths linked to COVID-19 included those in which the disease was listed as an underlying or contributing cause. US total death rates are “remarkably consistent” year after year, and the investigators calculated a 20% overall jump in mortality.

The study included data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the US Census Bureau for 48 states and the District of Columbia. Connecticut and North Carolina were excluded because of missing data.

Woolf and colleagues also found statistically higher rates of deaths from two other causes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
 

Altered states

New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Michigan had the highest per capita excess death rates. Three states experienced the shortest epidemics during the study period: New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

Some lessons could be learned by looking at how individual states managed large numbers of people with COVID-19. “Although we suspected that states that reopened early might have put themselves at risk of a pandemic surge, the consistency with which that occurred and the devastating numbers of deaths they suffered was a surprise,” Woolf said.

“The goal of our study is not to look in the rearview mirror and lament what happened months ago but to learn the lesson going forward: Our country will be unable to take control of this pandemic without more robust efforts to control community spread,” Woolf said. “Our study found that states that did this well, such as New York and New Jersey, experienced large surges but bent the curve and were back to baseline in less than 10 weeks.

“If we could do this as a country, countless lives could be saved.”
 

A global perspective

The United States experienced high mortality linked to COVID-19, as well as high all-cause mortality, compared with 18 other countries, as reported in the study by University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University researchers.

The United States ranked third, with 72 deaths per 100,000 people, among countries with moderate or high mortality. Although perhaps not surprising given the state of SARS-CoV-2 infection across the United States, a question remains as to what extent the relatively high mortality rate is linked to early outbreaks vs “poor long-term response,” the researchers note.

Alyssa Bilinski, MSc, and lead author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, calculated the difference in COVID-19 deaths among countries through Sept. 19, 2020. On this date, the United States reported a total 198,589 COVID-19 deaths.

They calculated that, if the US death rates were similar to those in Australia, the United States would have experienced 187,661 fewer COVID-19 deaths. If similar to those of Canada, there would have been 117,622 fewer deaths in the United States.

The US death rate was lower than six other countries with high COVID-19 mortality in the early spring, including Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However, after May 10, the per capita mortality rate in the United States exceeded the others.

Between May 10 and Sept. 19, the death rate in Italy was 9.1 per 100,000, vs 36.9 per 100,000.

“After the first peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than even countries with high COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers note. “This may have been a result of several factors, including weak public health infrastructure and a decentralized, inconsistent US response to the pandemic.”
 

“Mortifying and motivating”

Woolf and colleagues estimate that more than 225,000 excess deaths occurred in recent months; this represents a 20% increase over expected deaths, note Harvey V. Fineberg, MD, PhD, of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA.

“Importantly, a condition such as COVID-19 can contribute both directly and indirectly to excess mortality,” he writes.

Although the direct contribution to the mortality rates by those infected is straightforward, “the indirect contribution may relate to circumstances or choices due to the COVID-19 pandemic: for example, a patient who develops symptoms of a stroke is too concerned about COVID-19 to go to the emergency department, and a potentially reversible condition becomes fatal.”

Fineberg notes that “a general indication of the death toll from COVID-19 and the excess deaths related to the pandemic, as presented by Woolf et al, are sufficiently mortifying and motivating.”
 

“Profound human toll”

“The importance of the estimate by Woolf et al – which suggests that for the entirety of 2020, more than 400,000 excess deaths will occur – cannot be overstated, because it accounts for what could be declines in some causes of death, like motor vehicle crashes, but increases in others, like myocardial infarction,” write Howard Bauchner, MD, editor in chief of JAMA, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA, executive editor of JAMA, in another accompanying editorial.

“These deaths reflect a true measure of the human cost of the Great Pandemic of 2020,” they add.

The study from Emanuel and Bilinski was notable for calculating the excess COVID-19 and all-cause mortality to Sept. 2020, they note. “After the initial peak in early spring, US death rates from COVID-19 and from all causes remained higher than rates in countries with high COVID-19 mortality.”

“Few people will forget the Great Pandemic of 2020, where and how they lived, how it substantially changed their lives, and for many, the profound human toll it has taken,” Bauchner and Fontanarosa write.

The study by Woolf and colleagues was supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The study by Bilinski and Emanuel was partially funded by the Colton Foundation. Woolf, Emanuel, Fineberg, Bauchner, and Fontanarosa have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive surveillance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing and CT scans after colorectal cancer resection did not improve recurrence-free or overall survival when compared with standard abdominal ultrasound and chest x-ray monitoring in a phase 3 trial of almost 2,000 patients.

However, among patients with colon cancer recurrence, those randomized to intensive surveillance more often had a second surgery with curative intent. Even so, there was no overall survival benefit versus standard surveillance in this group.

In short, “none of the follow-up modalities resulted in a difference,” said investigator Come Lepage, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon (France).

Dr. Lepage presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Dr. Lepage said the study’s results suggest guidelines that include CT and CEA monitoring should be amended, and the standard surveillance methods should be ultrasound and chest x-ray. Dr. LePage called CEA surveillance “useless” and said CT scans should be performed only in cases of suspected recurrence.

However, study discussant Tim Price, MBBS, DHSc, of the University of Adelaide, noted that both the intensive and standard arms in this study had abdominal imaging every 3 months, be it ultrasound or CT, so even in the standard arms, surveillance “was still fairly aggressive.”

Because of that, the study does not “suggest we should decrease our intensity,” Dr. Price said.

He added that the study’s major finding was that more intensive surveillance led to higher rates of secondary surgery with curative intent, probably because recurrences were caught earlier than they would have been with standard surveillance, when curative surgery was still possible.

Patients in the study were treated during 2009-2015, and that might have also made a difference. “We need to remember that, in 2020, care is very different,” Dr. Price said. This includes increased surgical interventions and options for oligometastatic disease, plus systemic therapies such as pembrolizumab. With modern treatments, detecting recurrences earlier “may well have an impact on survival.”

Perhaps patients would live longer with “earlier diagnosis in today’s setting with more active agents and more aggressive surgery and radiotherapy [e.g., stereotactic ablative radiation therapy],” Dr. Price said in an interview.
 

Study details

The trial, dubbed PRODIGE 13, was done to bring clarity to the surveillance issue. Intensive follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer, including CT and CEA monitoring, is recommended by various scientific societies, but it’s based mainly on expert opinion. Results of the few clinical trials on the issue have been controversial, Dr. Lepage explained.

PRODIGE 13 included 1,995 subjects with colorectal cancer. About half of patients had stage II disease, and the other half had stage III. Most patients were 75 years or younger at baseline, and there were more men in the study than women. All patients underwent resection with curative intent and had no evidence of residual disease 3 months after surgery. Some patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Patients were first randomized to no CEA monitoring or CEA monitoring every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years. Members in both groups were then randomized a second time to either intensive or standard radiologic surveillance.

Surveillance in the standard arm consisted of an abdominal ultrasound every 3 months for the first 3 years, then biannually for an additional 2 years, plus chest x-rays every 6 months for 5 years. Intensive surveillance consisted of CT imaging, including thoracic imaging, alternating with abdominal ultrasound, every 3 months, then biannually for another 2 years.

At baseline, the surveillance groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, primary tumor location, and other factors, but stage III disease was more prevalent among patients randomized to standard radiologic monitoring without CEA.
 

Results

The median follow up was 6.5 years. There were no significant differences between the surveillance groups with regard to 5-year overall survival (P = .340) or recurrence-free survival (P = .473).

There were no significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival when patients were stratified by age, sex, stage, CEA at a cut point of 5 mcg/L, and primary tumor characteristics including location, perineural invasion, and occlusion/perforation.

There were 356 recurrences in patients initially treated for colon cancer. CEA surveillance with or without CT scan was associated with an increased incidence of secondary resection with curative intent. The rate of secondary resection was 66.3% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 59.5% in the CT plus CEA arm, 50.7% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 40.9% with standard imaging and no CEA (P = .0035).

The rates were similar among the 83 patients with recurrence after initial treatment for rectal cancer, but the between-arm differences were not significant. The rate of secondary resection with curative intent was 57.9% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 47.8% in the CT plus CEA arm, 55% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 42.9% with standard imaging and no CEA.

The research is ongoing, and the team expects to report on secondary outcomes and ancillary studies of circulating tumor DNA, among other things, in 2021.

The study is being funded by the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. Dr. Lepage disclosed ties with Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, and AAA. Dr. Price disclosed institutional research funding from Amgen and being an uncompensated adviser to Pierre-Fabre and Merck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lepage C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 398O.

Intensive surveillance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing and CT scans after colorectal cancer resection did not improve recurrence-free or overall survival when compared with standard abdominal ultrasound and chest x-ray monitoring in a phase 3 trial of almost 2,000 patients.

However, among patients with colon cancer recurrence, those randomized to intensive surveillance more often had a second surgery with curative intent. Even so, there was no overall survival benefit versus standard surveillance in this group.

In short, “none of the follow-up modalities resulted in a difference,” said investigator Come Lepage, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon (France).

Dr. Lepage presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Dr. Lepage said the study’s results suggest guidelines that include CT and CEA monitoring should be amended, and the standard surveillance methods should be ultrasound and chest x-ray. Dr. LePage called CEA surveillance “useless” and said CT scans should be performed only in cases of suspected recurrence.

However, study discussant Tim Price, MBBS, DHSc, of the University of Adelaide, noted that both the intensive and standard arms in this study had abdominal imaging every 3 months, be it ultrasound or CT, so even in the standard arms, surveillance “was still fairly aggressive.”

Because of that, the study does not “suggest we should decrease our intensity,” Dr. Price said.

He added that the study’s major finding was that more intensive surveillance led to higher rates of secondary surgery with curative intent, probably because recurrences were caught earlier than they would have been with standard surveillance, when curative surgery was still possible.

Patients in the study were treated during 2009-2015, and that might have also made a difference. “We need to remember that, in 2020, care is very different,” Dr. Price said. This includes increased surgical interventions and options for oligometastatic disease, plus systemic therapies such as pembrolizumab. With modern treatments, detecting recurrences earlier “may well have an impact on survival.”

Perhaps patients would live longer with “earlier diagnosis in today’s setting with more active agents and more aggressive surgery and radiotherapy [e.g., stereotactic ablative radiation therapy],” Dr. Price said in an interview.
 

Study details

The trial, dubbed PRODIGE 13, was done to bring clarity to the surveillance issue. Intensive follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer, including CT and CEA monitoring, is recommended by various scientific societies, but it’s based mainly on expert opinion. Results of the few clinical trials on the issue have been controversial, Dr. Lepage explained.

PRODIGE 13 included 1,995 subjects with colorectal cancer. About half of patients had stage II disease, and the other half had stage III. Most patients were 75 years or younger at baseline, and there were more men in the study than women. All patients underwent resection with curative intent and had no evidence of residual disease 3 months after surgery. Some patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Patients were first randomized to no CEA monitoring or CEA monitoring every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years. Members in both groups were then randomized a second time to either intensive or standard radiologic surveillance.

Surveillance in the standard arm consisted of an abdominal ultrasound every 3 months for the first 3 years, then biannually for an additional 2 years, plus chest x-rays every 6 months for 5 years. Intensive surveillance consisted of CT imaging, including thoracic imaging, alternating with abdominal ultrasound, every 3 months, then biannually for another 2 years.

At baseline, the surveillance groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, primary tumor location, and other factors, but stage III disease was more prevalent among patients randomized to standard radiologic monitoring without CEA.
 

Results

The median follow up was 6.5 years. There were no significant differences between the surveillance groups with regard to 5-year overall survival (P = .340) or recurrence-free survival (P = .473).

There were no significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival when patients were stratified by age, sex, stage, CEA at a cut point of 5 mcg/L, and primary tumor characteristics including location, perineural invasion, and occlusion/perforation.

There were 356 recurrences in patients initially treated for colon cancer. CEA surveillance with or without CT scan was associated with an increased incidence of secondary resection with curative intent. The rate of secondary resection was 66.3% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 59.5% in the CT plus CEA arm, 50.7% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 40.9% with standard imaging and no CEA (P = .0035).

The rates were similar among the 83 patients with recurrence after initial treatment for rectal cancer, but the between-arm differences were not significant. The rate of secondary resection with curative intent was 57.9% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 47.8% in the CT plus CEA arm, 55% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 42.9% with standard imaging and no CEA.

The research is ongoing, and the team expects to report on secondary outcomes and ancillary studies of circulating tumor DNA, among other things, in 2021.

The study is being funded by the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. Dr. Lepage disclosed ties with Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, and AAA. Dr. Price disclosed institutional research funding from Amgen and being an uncompensated adviser to Pierre-Fabre and Merck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lepage C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 398O.

Intensive surveillance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing and CT scans after colorectal cancer resection did not improve recurrence-free or overall survival when compared with standard abdominal ultrasound and chest x-ray monitoring in a phase 3 trial of almost 2,000 patients.

However, among patients with colon cancer recurrence, those randomized to intensive surveillance more often had a second surgery with curative intent. Even so, there was no overall survival benefit versus standard surveillance in this group.

In short, “none of the follow-up modalities resulted in a difference,” said investigator Come Lepage, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon (France).

Dr. Lepage presented these findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Dr. Lepage said the study’s results suggest guidelines that include CT and CEA monitoring should be amended, and the standard surveillance methods should be ultrasound and chest x-ray. Dr. LePage called CEA surveillance “useless” and said CT scans should be performed only in cases of suspected recurrence.

However, study discussant Tim Price, MBBS, DHSc, of the University of Adelaide, noted that both the intensive and standard arms in this study had abdominal imaging every 3 months, be it ultrasound or CT, so even in the standard arms, surveillance “was still fairly aggressive.”

Because of that, the study does not “suggest we should decrease our intensity,” Dr. Price said.

He added that the study’s major finding was that more intensive surveillance led to higher rates of secondary surgery with curative intent, probably because recurrences were caught earlier than they would have been with standard surveillance, when curative surgery was still possible.

Patients in the study were treated during 2009-2015, and that might have also made a difference. “We need to remember that, in 2020, care is very different,” Dr. Price said. This includes increased surgical interventions and options for oligometastatic disease, plus systemic therapies such as pembrolizumab. With modern treatments, detecting recurrences earlier “may well have an impact on survival.”

Perhaps patients would live longer with “earlier diagnosis in today’s setting with more active agents and more aggressive surgery and radiotherapy [e.g., stereotactic ablative radiation therapy],” Dr. Price said in an interview.
 

Study details

The trial, dubbed PRODIGE 13, was done to bring clarity to the surveillance issue. Intensive follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer, including CT and CEA monitoring, is recommended by various scientific societies, but it’s based mainly on expert opinion. Results of the few clinical trials on the issue have been controversial, Dr. Lepage explained.

PRODIGE 13 included 1,995 subjects with colorectal cancer. About half of patients had stage II disease, and the other half had stage III. Most patients were 75 years or younger at baseline, and there were more men in the study than women. All patients underwent resection with curative intent and had no evidence of residual disease 3 months after surgery. Some patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Patients were first randomized to no CEA monitoring or CEA monitoring every 3 months for the first 2 years, then every 6 months for an additional 3 years. Members in both groups were then randomized a second time to either intensive or standard radiologic surveillance.

Surveillance in the standard arm consisted of an abdominal ultrasound every 3 months for the first 3 years, then biannually for an additional 2 years, plus chest x-rays every 6 months for 5 years. Intensive surveillance consisted of CT imaging, including thoracic imaging, alternating with abdominal ultrasound, every 3 months, then biannually for another 2 years.

At baseline, the surveillance groups were well balanced with regard to demographics, primary tumor location, and other factors, but stage III disease was more prevalent among patients randomized to standard radiologic monitoring without CEA.
 

Results

The median follow up was 6.5 years. There were no significant differences between the surveillance groups with regard to 5-year overall survival (P = .340) or recurrence-free survival (P = .473).

There were no significant differences in recurrence-free or overall survival when patients were stratified by age, sex, stage, CEA at a cut point of 5 mcg/L, and primary tumor characteristics including location, perineural invasion, and occlusion/perforation.

There were 356 recurrences in patients initially treated for colon cancer. CEA surveillance with or without CT scan was associated with an increased incidence of secondary resection with curative intent. The rate of secondary resection was 66.3% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 59.5% in the CT plus CEA arm, 50.7% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 40.9% with standard imaging and no CEA (P = .0035).

The rates were similar among the 83 patients with recurrence after initial treatment for rectal cancer, but the between-arm differences were not significant. The rate of secondary resection with curative intent was 57.9% in the standard imaging with CEA arm, 47.8% in the CT plus CEA arm, 55% with CT imaging but no CEA, and 42.9% with standard imaging and no CEA.

The research is ongoing, and the team expects to report on secondary outcomes and ancillary studies of circulating tumor DNA, among other things, in 2021.

The study is being funded by the Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. Dr. Lepage disclosed ties with Novartis, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, and AAA. Dr. Price disclosed institutional research funding from Amgen and being an uncompensated adviser to Pierre-Fabre and Merck.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lepage C et al. ESMO 2020, Abstract 398O.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 28-year-old G2P1001 at 28 weeks’ gestation presents to your clinic with 1 day of dyspnea and palpitations. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She reports worsening dyspnea with mild exertion but denies other symptoms, including leg swelling.

The current incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnant women is estimated to be a relatively low 5 to 12 events per 10,000 pregnancies, yet the condition is the leading cause of maternal mortality in developed countries.^2,3,4 Currently, there are conflicting recommendations among relevant organization guidelines regarding the use of D-dimer testing to aid in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy. Both the Working Group in Women’s Health of the Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (GTH) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommend using D-dimer testing to rule out PE in pregnant women (ESC Class IIa, level of evidence B based on small studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies; GTH provides no grade).^5,6

Conversely, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Society of Thoracic Radiology recommend against the use of D-dimer testing in pregnant women because pregnant women were excluded from D-dimer validation studies (RCOG and SOGC Grade D; ATS weak recommendation).^4,7,8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not have specific recommendations regarding the use of D-dimer testing during pregnancy, but has endorsed the ATS guidelines.^4,9 In addition, SOGC recommends against the use of clinical prediction scores (Grade D), and RCOG states that there is no evidence to support their use (Grade C).^7,8 The remaining societies do not make a recommendation for or against the use of clinical prediction scores because of the absence of high-quality evidence regarding their use in the pregnant patient population.^4,5,6

STUDY SUMMARY

Prospective validation of a strategy to diagnose PE in pregnant women

This multicenter, multinational, prospective diagnostic study involving 395 pregnant women evaluated the accuracy of PE diagnosis across 11 centers in France and Switzerland from August 2008 through July 2016.¹ Patients with clinically suspected PE were evaluated in emergency departments. Patients were tested according to a diagnostic algorithm that included pretest clinical probability using the revised Geneva Score for Pulmonary Embolism (www.mdcalc.com/geneva-score-revised-pulmonary-­embolism), a clinical prediction tool that uses patient history, presenting symptoms, and clinical signs to classify patients as being at low (0-3/25), intermediate (4-10/25), or high (≥ 11/25) risk;¹⁰ high-sensitivity D-dimer testing; bilateral lower limb compression ultrasonography (CUS); computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan.

PE was excluded in patients who had a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability score and a negative D-dimer test result (< 500 mcg/L). Patients with a high pretest probability score or positive D-dimer test result underwent CUS, and, if negative, subsequent CTPA. A V/Q scan was performed if the CTPA was inconclusive. If the work-up was negative, PE was excluded.

Untreated pregnant women had clinical follow-up at 3 months. Any cases of suspected VTE were evaluated by a 3-member independent adjudication committee blinded to the initial diagnostic work-up. The primary outcome was the rate of adjudicated VTE events during the 3-month follow-up period. PE was diagnosed in 28 patients (7.1%) and excluded in 367 (clinical probability score and negative D-dimer test result [n = 46], negative CTPA result [n = 290], normal or low-probability V/Q scan [n = 17], and other reason [n = 14]). Twenty-two women received anticoagulation during the follow-up period for other reasons (mainly history of previous VTE disease). No symptomatic VTE events occurred in any of the women after the diagnostic work-up was negative, including among those patients who were ruled out with only the clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result (rate 0.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0%-1%).

WHAT’S NEW

Clinical probability and D-dimer rule out PE in pregnant women

This study ruled out PE in patients with low/intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing. This low-cost strategy can be applied easily to the pregnant population.

CAVEATS

Additional research is still needed

From the results of this study, 11.6% of patients (n = 46) had a PE ruled out utilizing the revised Geneva score in conjunction with a D-dimer test result, with avoidance of chest imaging. However, this study was powered for the entire treatment algorithm and was not specifically powered for patients with low- or intermediate-risk pretest probability scores. Since this is the first published prospective diagnostic study of VTE in pregnancy, further research is needed to confirm the findings that a clinical prediction tool and a negative D-dimer test result can safely rule out PE in pregnant women.

This strategy ruled out PE in patients with low/ intermediate risk as determined by the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer test, enabling patients to avoid further diagnostic testing.

In addition, further research is needed to determine pregnancy-adapted D-dimer cut-off values, as the researchers of this study noted that < 500 mcg/L was useful in the first and second trimester, but that levels increased as gestational age increased.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

None to speak of

Implementing a diagnostic algorithm that incorporates sequential assessment of pretest clinical probability based on the revised Geneva score and a D-dimer measurement should be relatively easy to implement, as both methods are readily available and relatively inexpensive.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The global burden of dementia is increasing at an alarming pace and is estimated to soon affect 81 million individuals worldwide.¹ The World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine have recommended greater dementia awareness and education.^2,3 Despite this emphasis on dementia education, many general practitioners consider dementia care beyond their clinical domain and feel that specialists, such as geriatricians, geriatric psychiatrists, or neurologists should address dementia assessment and treatment. ⁴ Unfortunately, the geriatric health care workforce has been shrinking. The American Geriatrics Society estimates the need for 30,000 geriatricians by 2030, although there are only 7,300 board-certified geriatricians currently in the US.5 There is an urgent need for educating all medical trainees in dementia care regardless of their specialization interest. As the largest underwriter of graduate medical education in the US, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is well placed for rolling out focused dementia education. Training needs to be practical, brief, and responsive to knowledge gaps to reach the most trainees.

Despite growing emphasis on geriatric training, many medical students have limited experience with patients with dementia or their caregivers, lack exposure to interdisciplinary teams, have a poor attitude toward geriatric patients, and display specific knowledge gaps in dementia assessment and management. ^6-9 Other knowledge gaps noted in medical students included assessing behavioral problems, function, safety, and caregiver burden. Medical students also had limited exposure to interdisciplinary team dementia assessment and management.

Our goal was to develop a multicomponent, experiential, brief curriculum using team-based learning to expose senior medical students to interdisciplinary assessment of dementia. The curriculum was developed with input from the interdisciplinary team to address dementia knowledge gaps while providing an opportunity to interact with caregivers. The curriculum targeted all medical students regardless of their interest in geriatrics. Particular emphasis was placed on systems-based learning and the importance of teamwork in managing complex conditions such as dementia. Students were taught that incorporating interdisciplinary input would be more effective during dementia care planning rather than developing specialized knowledge.

Methods

Our team developed a curriculum for fourthyear medical students who rotated through the VA Memory Disorders Clinic as a part of their geriatric medicine clerkship at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. The Memory Disorders Clinic is a consultation practice at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS) where patients with memory problems are evaluated by a team consisting of a geriatric psychiatrist, a geriatrician, a social worker, and a neuropsychologist. Each specialist addresses specific areas of dementia assessment and management. The curriculum included didactics, clinical experience, and team-based learning.

Didactics

An hour-long didactic session lead by the team geriatrician provided a general overview of interdisciplinary assessment of dementia to groups of 2 to 3 students at a time. The geriatrician presented an overview of dementia types, comorbidities, medications that affect memory, details of the physical examination, and laboratory, cognitive, and behavioral assessments along with treatment plan development. Students also learned about the roles of the social worker, geriatrician, neuropsychologist, and geriatric psychiatrist in the clinic. Pictographs and pie charts highlighted the role of disciplines in assessing and managing aspects of dementia.

The social work evaluation included advance care planning, functional assessment, safety assessment (driving, guns, wandering behaviors, etc), home safety evaluation, support system, and financial evaluation. Each medical student received a binder with local resources to become familiar with the depth and breadth of agencies involved in dementia care. Each medical student learned how to administer the Zarit Burden Scale to assess caregiver burden^.10 The details of the geriatrician assessment included reviewing medical comorbidities and medications contributing to dementia, a physical examination, including a focused neurologic examination, laboratory assessment, and judicious use of neuroimaging.

The neuropsychology assessment education included a battery of tests and assessments. The global screening instruments included the Modified Mini-Mental State examination (3MS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Saint Louis University Mental Status examination (SLUMS).^11-13 Executive function is evaluated using the Trails Making Test A and Trails Making Test B, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Semantic Fluency Test, and Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status test. Cognitive tests were compared and age- , education-, and race-adjusted norms for rating scales were listed if available. Each student was expected to show proficiency in ≥ 2 cognitive screening instruments (3MS, MoCA, or SLUMS). The geriatric psychiatry assessment included clinical history, onset, and course of memory problems from patient and caregiver perspectives, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for assessing behavioral problems, employing the clinical dementia rating scale, integrating the team data, summarizing assessment, and formulating a treatment plan.¹⁴

Clinical

Students had a single clinical exposure. Students followed 1 patient and his or her caregiver through the team assessment and observed each provider’s assessment to learn interview techniques to adapt to the patient’s sensory or cognitive impairment and become familiar with different tools and devices used in the dementia clinic, such as hearing amplifiers. Each specialist provided hands-on experience. This encounter helped the students connect with caregivers and appreciate their role in patient care.

Systems learning was an important component integrated throughout the clinical experience. Examples include using video teleconferences to communicate findings among team members and electronic health records to seamlessly obtain and integrate data. Students learned how to create worksheets to graph laboratory data such as B12, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and rapid plasma regain levels. Student gained experience in using applications to retrieve neuroimaging data, results of sleep studies, and other data. Many patients had not received the results of their sleep study, and students had the responsibility to share these reports, including the number of apneic episodes. Students used the VA Computerized Patient Record System for reviewing patient records. One particularly useful tool was Joint Legacy Viewer, a remote access tool used to retrieve data on veterans from anywhere within the US. Students were also trained on medication and consult order menus in the system.

Team-Based

Learning The objectives of the team-based learning section were to teach students basic concepts of integrating the interdisciplinary assessment and formulating a treatment plan, to provide an opportunity to present their case in a group format, to discuss the differential diagnosis, management and treatment plan with a geriatrician in the team-based learning format, and to answer questions from other students. The instructors developed a set of prepared take-home points (Table 1). The team-based learning sessions were structured so that all take-home points were covered.

Evaluations

Evaluations were performed before and immediately after the clinical experience. In preevaluation, students reported the frequency of their participation in an interdisciplinary team assessment of any condition and specifically for dementia. In pre- and postevaluation, students rated their perception of the role of interdisciplinary team members in assessing and managing dementia, their personal abilities to assess cognition, behavioral problems, caregiver burden, and their perception of the impact of behavioral problems on dementia care. A Likert scale (poor = 1; fair = 2; good = 3; very good = 4; and excellent = 5) was employed (eApendices 1 and 2 can be found at doi:10.12788/fp.0052). The only demographic information collected was the student’s gender. Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess students’ current knowledge, experience, and needs. These interviews lasted about 20 minutes and collected information regarding the students’ knowledge about cognitive and behavioral problems in general and those occurring in dementia, their experience with screening, and any problems they encountered.

Statistical Analysis

Student baseline characteristics were assessed. Pre- and postassessments were analyzed with the McNemar test for paired data, and associations with experience were evaluated using χ² tests. Ratings were dichotomized as very good/excellent vs poor/fair/ good because our educational goal was “very good” to “excellent” experience in dementia care and to avoid expected small cell counts. Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance. Data were analyzed using SAS Enterprise Guide v5.1.

Results

One hundred fourth-year medical students participated, including 54 women. Thirtysix percent reported they had not previously attended an interdisciplinary team assessment for dementia, while 18% stated that they had attended only 1 interdisciplinary team assessment for dementia.

Before the education, students rated their dementia ability as poor. Only 2% (1 of 54), of those with 0 to 1 assessment experience rated their ability for assessing dementia with an interdisciplinary team format as very good/excellent compared with 20% (9/46) of those previously attending ≥ 2 assessments (P = .03); other ratings of ability were not associated with prior experience.

There was a significant change in the students’ self-efficacy ratings pre- to postassessment (P < .05) (Table 2). Only 10% rated their ability to assess for dementia as very good/excellent in before the intervention compared with 96% in postassessment (P < .01). Students’ perception of the impact of behavioral problems on dementia care improved significantly (45% to 98%, P < .01). Similarly, student’s perception of their ability to assess behavioral problems, caregiver burden, and cognition improved significantly from 7 to 88%; 7 to 78%, and 18 to 92%, respectively (P < .01). Students perception of the role of social worker, neuropsychologist, geriatrician, and geriatric psychiatrist also improved significantly for most measures from 81 to 98% (P = .02), 87 to 98% (P = .05), 94 to 99% (P = .06), and 88 to 100% (P = .01), respectively.

The semistructured interviews revealed that awareness of behavioral problems associated with dementia varied for different behavioral problems. Although many students showed familiarity with depression, agitation, and psychosis, they were not comfortable assessing them in a patient with dementia. These students were less aware of other behavioral problems such as disinhibition, apathy, and movement disorders. Deficits were noted in the skill of administering commonly used global cognitive screens, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).¹⁵

In semistructured interviews, only 7% of senior medical students were comfortable assessing behavioral problems associated with dementia. Most were not aware of any validated rating scale to assess neuropsychiatric symptoms. Similarly, only 7% of students were comfortable assessing caregiver burden, and most were not aware of any validated rating scale to assess caregiver burden. Only 1 in 5 students were comfortable using 2 cognitive screens to assess cognitive deficits. Many students stated that they were not routinely expected to perform common cognitive screens, such as the MMSE during their medical training except students who had expressed an interest in psychiatry and were expected to be proficient in the MMSE. Most students were making common mistakes, such as converting the 3-command task to 3 individual single commands, helping too much with serial 7s, and giving too much positive feedback throughout the test.

Discussion

Significant knowledge gaps regarding dementia were found in our study, which is in keeping with other studies in the area. Dementia knowledge deficits among medical trainees have been identified in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the US.^6-9

In our study, a brief multicomponent experiential curriculum improved senior medical students’ perception and self-efficacy in diagnosing dementia. This is in keeping with other studies, such as the PAIRS Program.⁷ Findings from another study indicated that education for geriatric- oriented physicians should focus on experiential learning components through observation and interaction with older adults.¹⁶

A background of direct experience with older adults is associated with more positive attitudes toward older adults and increased interest in geriatric medicine.¹⁶ In our study, the exposure was brief; therefore, the results could not be compared with other long-term exposure studies. However, even with this brief intervention most students reported being comfortable with assessing caregiver burden (78%), behavioral problems of dementia (88%), and using ≥ 2 cognitive screens (92%). Comfortable in dementia assessment increased after the intervention from 10% to 96%. This finding is encouraging because brief multicomponent dementia education can be devised easily. This finding needs to be taken with caution because we did not conduct a formal skills evaluation.

A unique component of our experience was to learn medical students’ perception about the impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms on the trajectory, outcomes, and management of dementia. These symptoms included delusions, hallucinations, agitation, depression, anxiety, euphoria, apathy, disinhibition, irritability, motor disturbance, nighttime behaviors, and appetite and eating. Less than half the students thought that neuropsychiatric symptoms had a significant impact on dementia before the experience. Through didactics, systematic assessment of neuropsychiatric symptoms and interaction with caregivers, > 98% of students learned that these symptoms have a significant impact on dementia management.

This experience also emphasized the role of several disciplines in dementia assessment and management. Students’ experience positively influenced appreciation of the role of the memory clinic team. Our hope is that students will seek input from social workers, neuropsychologists, and other team members when working with patients with dementia or their caregivers. The common reason why primary care physicians focus on an exclusive medical model is the time commitment for communicating with an interdisciplinary team. Students experienced the feasibility of the interdisciplinary team involvement and how technology could be used for synchronous and asynchronous communication among team members. Medical students also were introduced to complex billing codes used when ≥ 3 disciplines assess/manage a geriatric patient.

Limitations

This study is limited by the lack of long-term follow-up evaluations, no metrics for practice changes clinical outcomes, and implementation in a single medical school. The postexperience evaluation in this study was performed immediately after the intervention. Long-term follow-up would inform whether the changes noted are durable. Because of the brief nature of our intervention, we do not believe that it would change practice in clinical care. It will be informative to follow this cohort of students to study whether their clinical approach to dementia care changes. The intervention needs to be replicated in other medical schools and in more heterogeneous groups to generalize the results of the study.

Conclusions

Senior medical students are not routinely exposed to interdisciplinary team assessments. Dementia knowledge gaps were prevalent in this cohort of senior medical students. Providing interdisciplinary geriatric educational experience improved their perception of their ability to assess for dementia and their recognition of the roles of interdisciplinary team members. Plans are in place to continue and expand the program to other complex geriatric syndromes.

Acknowledgments
Poster presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society. Oral presentation at the same meeting as part of the select Geriatric Education Methods and Materials Swap workshop.

The global burden of dementia is increasing at an alarming pace and is estimated to soon affect 81 million individuals worldwide.¹ The World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine have recommended greater dementia awareness and education.^2,3 Despite this emphasis on dementia education, many general practitioners consider dementia care beyond their clinical domain and feel that specialists, such as geriatricians, geriatric psychiatrists, or neurologists should address dementia assessment and treatment. ⁴ Unfortunately, the geriatric health care workforce has been shrinking. The American Geriatrics Society estimates the need for 30,000 geriatricians by 2030, although there are only 7,300 board-certified geriatricians currently in the US.5 There is an urgent need for educating all medical trainees in dementia care regardless of their specialization interest. As the largest underwriter of graduate medical education in the US, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is well placed for rolling out focused dementia education. Training needs to be practical, brief, and responsive to knowledge gaps to reach the most trainees.

Despite growing emphasis on geriatric training, many medical students have limited experience with patients with dementia or their caregivers, lack exposure to interdisciplinary teams, have a poor attitude toward geriatric patients, and display specific knowledge gaps in dementia assessment and management. ^6-9 Other knowledge gaps noted in medical students included assessing behavioral problems, function, safety, and caregiver burden. Medical students also had limited exposure to interdisciplinary team dementia assessment and management.

Our goal was to develop a multicomponent, experiential, brief curriculum using team-based learning to expose senior medical students to interdisciplinary assessment of dementia. The curriculum was developed with input from the interdisciplinary team to address dementia knowledge gaps while providing an opportunity to interact with caregivers. The curriculum targeted all medical students regardless of their interest in geriatrics. Particular emphasis was placed on systems-based learning and the importance of teamwork in managing complex conditions such as dementia. Students were taught that incorporating interdisciplinary input would be more effective during dementia care planning rather than developing specialized knowledge.

Methods

Our team developed a curriculum for fourthyear medical students who rotated through the VA Memory Disorders Clinic as a part of their geriatric medicine clerkship at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. The Memory Disorders Clinic is a consultation practice at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS) where patients with memory problems are evaluated by a team consisting of a geriatric psychiatrist, a geriatrician, a social worker, and a neuropsychologist. Each specialist addresses specific areas of dementia assessment and management. The curriculum included didactics, clinical experience, and team-based learning.

Didactics

An hour-long didactic session lead by the team geriatrician provided a general overview of interdisciplinary assessment of dementia to groups of 2 to 3 students at a time. The geriatrician presented an overview of dementia types, comorbidities, medications that affect memory, details of the physical examination, and laboratory, cognitive, and behavioral assessments along with treatment plan development. Students also learned about the roles of the social worker, geriatrician, neuropsychologist, and geriatric psychiatrist in the clinic. Pictographs and pie charts highlighted the role of disciplines in assessing and managing aspects of dementia.

The social work evaluation included advance care planning, functional assessment, safety assessment (driving, guns, wandering behaviors, etc), home safety evaluation, support system, and financial evaluation. Each medical student received a binder with local resources to become familiar with the depth and breadth of agencies involved in dementia care. Each medical student learned how to administer the Zarit Burden Scale to assess caregiver burden^.10 The details of the geriatrician assessment included reviewing medical comorbidities and medications contributing to dementia, a physical examination, including a focused neurologic examination, laboratory assessment, and judicious use of neuroimaging.

The neuropsychology assessment education included a battery of tests and assessments. The global screening instruments included the Modified Mini-Mental State examination (3MS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Saint Louis University Mental Status examination (SLUMS).^11-13 Executive function is evaluated using the Trails Making Test A and Trails Making Test B, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Semantic Fluency Test, and Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status test. Cognitive tests were compared and age- , education-, and race-adjusted norms for rating scales were listed if available. Each student was expected to show proficiency in ≥ 2 cognitive screening instruments (3MS, MoCA, or SLUMS). The geriatric psychiatry assessment included clinical history, onset, and course of memory problems from patient and caregiver perspectives, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for assessing behavioral problems, employing the clinical dementia rating scale, integrating the team data, summarizing assessment, and formulating a treatment plan.¹⁴

Clinical

Students had a single clinical exposure. Students followed 1 patient and his or her caregiver through the team assessment and observed each provider’s assessment to learn interview techniques to adapt to the patient’s sensory or cognitive impairment and become familiar with different tools and devices used in the dementia clinic, such as hearing amplifiers. Each specialist provided hands-on experience. This encounter helped the students connect with caregivers and appreciate their role in patient care.

Systems learning was an important component integrated throughout the clinical experience. Examples include using video teleconferences to communicate findings among team members and electronic health records to seamlessly obtain and integrate data. Students learned how to create worksheets to graph laboratory data such as B12, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and rapid plasma regain levels. Student gained experience in using applications to retrieve neuroimaging data, results of sleep studies, and other data. Many patients had not received the results of their sleep study, and students had the responsibility to share these reports, including the number of apneic episodes. Students used the VA Computerized Patient Record System for reviewing patient records. One particularly useful tool was Joint Legacy Viewer, a remote access tool used to retrieve data on veterans from anywhere within the US. Students were also trained on medication and consult order menus in the system.

Team-Based

Learning The objectives of the team-based learning section were to teach students basic concepts of integrating the interdisciplinary assessment and formulating a treatment plan, to provide an opportunity to present their case in a group format, to discuss the differential diagnosis, management and treatment plan with a geriatrician in the team-based learning format, and to answer questions from other students. The instructors developed a set of prepared take-home points (Table 1). The team-based learning sessions were structured so that all take-home points were covered.

Evaluations

Evaluations were performed before and immediately after the clinical experience. In preevaluation, students reported the frequency of their participation in an interdisciplinary team assessment of any condition and specifically for dementia. In pre- and postevaluation, students rated their perception of the role of interdisciplinary team members in assessing and managing dementia, their personal abilities to assess cognition, behavioral problems, caregiver burden, and their perception of the impact of behavioral problems on dementia care. A Likert scale (poor = 1; fair = 2; good = 3; very good = 4; and excellent = 5) was employed (eApendices 1 and 2 can be found at doi:10.12788/fp.0052). The only demographic information collected was the student’s gender. Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess students’ current knowledge, experience, and needs. These interviews lasted about 20 minutes and collected information regarding the students’ knowledge about cognitive and behavioral problems in general and those occurring in dementia, their experience with screening, and any problems they encountered.

Statistical Analysis

Student baseline characteristics were assessed. Pre- and postassessments were analyzed with the McNemar test for paired data, and associations with experience were evaluated using χ² tests. Ratings were dichotomized as very good/excellent vs poor/fair/ good because our educational goal was “very good” to “excellent” experience in dementia care and to avoid expected small cell counts. Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance. Data were analyzed using SAS Enterprise Guide v5.1.

Results

One hundred fourth-year medical students participated, including 54 women. Thirtysix percent reported they had not previously attended an interdisciplinary team assessment for dementia, while 18% stated that they had attended only 1 interdisciplinary team assessment for dementia.

Before the education, students rated their dementia ability as poor. Only 2% (1 of 54), of those with 0 to 1 assessment experience rated their ability for assessing dementia with an interdisciplinary team format as very good/excellent compared with 20% (9/46) of those previously attending ≥ 2 assessments (P = .03); other ratings of ability were not associated with prior experience.

There was a significant change in the students’ self-efficacy ratings pre- to postassessment (P < .05) (Table 2). Only 10% rated their ability to assess for dementia as very good/excellent in before the intervention compared with 96% in postassessment (P < .01). Students’ perception of the impact of behavioral problems on dementia care improved significantly (45% to 98%, P < .01). Similarly, student’s perception of their ability to assess behavioral problems, caregiver burden, and cognition improved significantly from 7 to 88%; 7 to 78%, and 18 to 92%, respectively (P < .01). Students perception of the role of social worker, neuropsychologist, geriatrician, and geriatric psychiatrist also improved significantly for most measures from 81 to 98% (P = .02), 87 to 98% (P = .05), 94 to 99% (P = .06), and 88 to 100% (P = .01), respectively.

The semistructured interviews revealed that awareness of behavioral problems associated with dementia varied for different behavioral problems. Although many students showed familiarity with depression, agitation, and psychosis, they were not comfortable assessing them in a patient with dementia. These students were less aware of other behavioral problems such as disinhibition, apathy, and movement disorders. Deficits were noted in the skill of administering commonly used global cognitive screens, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).¹⁵

In semistructured interviews, only 7% of senior medical students were comfortable assessing behavioral problems associated with dementia. Most were not aware of any validated rating scale to assess neuropsychiatric symptoms. Similarly, only 7% of students were comfortable assessing caregiver burden, and most were not aware of any validated rating scale to assess caregiver burden. Only 1 in 5 students were comfortable using 2 cognitive screens to assess cognitive deficits. Many students stated that they were not routinely expected to perform common cognitive screens, such as the MMSE during their medical training except students who had expressed an interest in psychiatry and were expected to be proficient in the MMSE. Most students were making common mistakes, such as converting the 3-command task to 3 individual single commands, helping too much with serial 7s, and giving too much positive feedback throughout the test.

Discussion

Significant knowledge gaps regarding dementia were found in our study, which is in keeping with other studies in the area. Dementia knowledge deficits among medical trainees have been identified in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the US.^6-9

In our study, a brief multicomponent experiential curriculum improved senior medical students’ perception and self-efficacy in diagnosing dementia. This is in keeping with other studies, such as the PAIRS Program.⁷ Findings from another study indicated that education for geriatric- oriented physicians should focus on experiential learning components through observation and interaction with older adults.¹⁶

A background of direct experience with older adults is associated with more positive attitudes toward older adults and increased interest in geriatric medicine.¹⁶ In our study, the exposure was brief; therefore, the results could not be compared with other long-term exposure studies. However, even with this brief intervention most students reported being comfortable with assessing caregiver burden (78%), behavioral problems of dementia (88%), and using ≥ 2 cognitive screens (92%). Comfortable in dementia assessment increased after the intervention from 10% to 96%. This finding is encouraging because brief multicomponent dementia education can be devised easily. This finding needs to be taken with caution because we did not conduct a formal skills evaluation.

A unique component of our experience was to learn medical students’ perception about the impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms on the trajectory, outcomes, and management of dementia. These symptoms included delusions, hallucinations, agitation, depression, anxiety, euphoria, apathy, disinhibition, irritability, motor disturbance, nighttime behaviors, and appetite and eating. Less than half the students thought that neuropsychiatric symptoms had a significant impact on dementia before the experience. Through didactics, systematic assessment of neuropsychiatric symptoms and interaction with caregivers, > 98% of students learned that these symptoms have a significant impact on dementia management.

This experience also emphasized the role of several disciplines in dementia assessment and management. Students’ experience positively influenced appreciation of the role of the memory clinic team. Our hope is that students will seek input from social workers, neuropsychologists, and other team members when working with patients with dementia or their caregivers. The common reason why primary care physicians focus on an exclusive medical model is the time commitment for communicating with an interdisciplinary team. Students experienced the feasibility of the interdisciplinary team involvement and how technology could be used for synchronous and asynchronous communication among team members. Medical students also were introduced to complex billing codes used when ≥ 3 disciplines assess/manage a geriatric patient.

Limitations

This study is limited by the lack of long-term follow-up evaluations, no metrics for practice changes clinical outcomes, and implementation in a single medical school. The postexperience evaluation in this study was performed immediately after the intervention. Long-term follow-up would inform whether the changes noted are durable. Because of the brief nature of our intervention, we do not believe that it would change practice in clinical care. It will be informative to follow this cohort of students to study whether their clinical approach to dementia care changes. The intervention needs to be replicated in other medical schools and in more heterogeneous groups to generalize the results of the study.

Conclusions

Senior medical students are not routinely exposed to interdisciplinary team assessments. Dementia knowledge gaps were prevalent in this cohort of senior medical students. Providing interdisciplinary geriatric educational experience improved their perception of their ability to assess for dementia and their recognition of the roles of interdisciplinary team members. Plans are in place to continue and expand the program to other complex geriatric syndromes.

Acknowledgments
Poster presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society. Oral presentation at the same meeting as part of the select Geriatric Education Methods and Materials Swap workshop.

The global burden of dementia is increasing at an alarming pace and is estimated to soon affect 81 million individuals worldwide.¹ The World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine have recommended greater dementia awareness and education.^2,3 Despite this emphasis on dementia education, many general practitioners consider dementia care beyond their clinical domain and feel that specialists, such as geriatricians, geriatric psychiatrists, or neurologists should address dementia assessment and treatment. ⁴ Unfortunately, the geriatric health care workforce has been shrinking. The American Geriatrics Society estimates the need for 30,000 geriatricians by 2030, although there are only 7,300 board-certified geriatricians currently in the US.5 There is an urgent need for educating all medical trainees in dementia care regardless of their specialization interest. As the largest underwriter of graduate medical education in the US, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is well placed for rolling out focused dementia education. Training needs to be practical, brief, and responsive to knowledge gaps to reach the most trainees.

Despite growing emphasis on geriatric training, many medical students have limited experience with patients with dementia or their caregivers, lack exposure to interdisciplinary teams, have a poor attitude toward geriatric patients, and display specific knowledge gaps in dementia assessment and management. ^6-9 Other knowledge gaps noted in medical students included assessing behavioral problems, function, safety, and caregiver burden. Medical students also had limited exposure to interdisciplinary team dementia assessment and management.

Our goal was to develop a multicomponent, experiential, brief curriculum using team-based learning to expose senior medical students to interdisciplinary assessment of dementia. The curriculum was developed with input from the interdisciplinary team to address dementia knowledge gaps while providing an opportunity to interact with caregivers. The curriculum targeted all medical students regardless of their interest in geriatrics. Particular emphasis was placed on systems-based learning and the importance of teamwork in managing complex conditions such as dementia. Students were taught that incorporating interdisciplinary input would be more effective during dementia care planning rather than developing specialized knowledge.

Methods

Our team developed a curriculum for fourthyear medical students who rotated through the VA Memory Disorders Clinic as a part of their geriatric medicine clerkship at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. The Memory Disorders Clinic is a consultation practice at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System (CAVHS) where patients with memory problems are evaluated by a team consisting of a geriatric psychiatrist, a geriatrician, a social worker, and a neuropsychologist. Each specialist addresses specific areas of dementia assessment and management. The curriculum included didactics, clinical experience, and team-based learning.

Didactics

An hour-long didactic session lead by the team geriatrician provided a general overview of interdisciplinary assessment of dementia to groups of 2 to 3 students at a time. The geriatrician presented an overview of dementia types, comorbidities, medications that affect memory, details of the physical examination, and laboratory, cognitive, and behavioral assessments along with treatment plan development. Students also learned about the roles of the social worker, geriatrician, neuropsychologist, and geriatric psychiatrist in the clinic. Pictographs and pie charts highlighted the role of disciplines in assessing and managing aspects of dementia.

The social work evaluation included advance care planning, functional assessment, safety assessment (driving, guns, wandering behaviors, etc), home safety evaluation, support system, and financial evaluation. Each medical student received a binder with local resources to become familiar with the depth and breadth of agencies involved in dementia care. Each medical student learned how to administer the Zarit Burden Scale to assess caregiver burden^.10 The details of the geriatrician assessment included reviewing medical comorbidities and medications contributing to dementia, a physical examination, including a focused neurologic examination, laboratory assessment, and judicious use of neuroimaging.

The neuropsychology assessment education included a battery of tests and assessments. The global screening instruments included the Modified Mini-Mental State examination (3MS), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Saint Louis University Mental Status examination (SLUMS).^11-13 Executive function is evaluated using the Trails Making Test A and Trails Making Test B, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, Semantic Fluency Test, and Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status test. Cognitive tests were compared and age- , education-, and race-adjusted norms for rating scales were listed if available. Each student was expected to show proficiency in ≥ 2 cognitive screening instruments (3MS, MoCA, or SLUMS). The geriatric psychiatry assessment included clinical history, onset, and course of memory problems from patient and caregiver perspectives, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for assessing behavioral problems, employing the clinical dementia rating scale, integrating the team data, summarizing assessment, and formulating a treatment plan.¹⁴

Clinical

Students had a single clinical exposure. Students followed 1 patient and his or her caregiver through the team assessment and observed each provider’s assessment to learn interview techniques to adapt to the patient’s sensory or cognitive impairment and become familiar with different tools and devices used in the dementia clinic, such as hearing amplifiers. Each specialist provided hands-on experience. This encounter helped the students connect with caregivers and appreciate their role in patient care.

Systems learning was an important component integrated throughout the clinical experience. Examples include using video teleconferences to communicate findings among team members and electronic health records to seamlessly obtain and integrate data. Students learned how to create worksheets to graph laboratory data such as B12, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and rapid plasma regain levels. Student gained experience in using applications to retrieve neuroimaging data, results of sleep studies, and other data. Many patients had not received the results of their sleep study, and students had the responsibility to share these reports, including the number of apneic episodes. Students used the VA Computerized Patient Record System for reviewing patient records. One particularly useful tool was Joint Legacy Viewer, a remote access tool used to retrieve data on veterans from anywhere within the US. Students were also trained on medication and consult order menus in the system.

Team-Based

Learning The objectives of the team-based learning section were to teach students basic concepts of integrating the interdisciplinary assessment and formulating a treatment plan, to provide an opportunity to present their case in a group format, to discuss the differential diagnosis, management and treatment plan with a geriatrician in the team-based learning format, and to answer questions from other students. The instructors developed a set of prepared take-home points (Table 1). The team-based learning sessions were structured so that all take-home points were covered.

Evaluations

Evaluations were performed before and immediately after the clinical experience. In preevaluation, students reported the frequency of their participation in an interdisciplinary team assessment of any condition and specifically for dementia. In pre- and postevaluation, students rated their perception of the role of interdisciplinary team members in assessing and managing dementia, their personal abilities to assess cognition, behavioral problems, caregiver burden, and their perception of the impact of behavioral problems on dementia care. A Likert scale (poor = 1; fair = 2; good = 3; very good = 4; and excellent = 5) was employed (eApendices 1 and 2 can be found at doi:10.12788/fp.0052). The only demographic information collected was the student’s gender. Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess students’ current knowledge, experience, and needs. These interviews lasted about 20 minutes and collected information regarding the students’ knowledge about cognitive and behavioral problems in general and those occurring in dementia, their experience with screening, and any problems they encountered.

Statistical Analysis

Student baseline characteristics were assessed. Pre- and postassessments were analyzed with the McNemar test for paired data, and associations with experience were evaluated using χ² tests. Ratings were dichotomized as very good/excellent vs poor/fair/ good because our educational goal was “very good” to “excellent” experience in dementia care and to avoid expected small cell counts. Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance. Data were analyzed using SAS Enterprise Guide v5.1.

Results

One hundred fourth-year medical students participated, including 54 women. Thirtysix percent reported they had not previously attended an interdisciplinary team assessment for dementia, while 18% stated that they had attended only 1 interdisciplinary team assessment for dementia.

Before the education, students rated their dementia ability as poor. Only 2% (1 of 54), of those with 0 to 1 assessment experience rated their ability for assessing dementia with an interdisciplinary team format as very good/excellent compared with 20% (9/46) of those previously attending ≥ 2 assessments (P = .03); other ratings of ability were not associated with prior experience.

There was a significant change in the students’ self-efficacy ratings pre- to postassessment (P < .05) (Table 2). Only 10% rated their ability to assess for dementia as very good/excellent in before the intervention compared with 96% in postassessment (P < .01). Students’ perception of the impact of behavioral problems on dementia care improved significantly (45% to 98%, P < .01). Similarly, student’s perception of their ability to assess behavioral problems, caregiver burden, and cognition improved significantly from 7 to 88%; 7 to 78%, and 18 to 92%, respectively (P < .01). Students perception of the role of social worker, neuropsychologist, geriatrician, and geriatric psychiatrist also improved significantly for most measures from 81 to 98% (P = .02), 87 to 98% (P = .05), 94 to 99% (P = .06), and 88 to 100% (P = .01), respectively.

The semistructured interviews revealed that awareness of behavioral problems associated with dementia varied for different behavioral problems. Although many students showed familiarity with depression, agitation, and psychosis, they were not comfortable assessing them in a patient with dementia. These students were less aware of other behavioral problems such as disinhibition, apathy, and movement disorders. Deficits were noted in the skill of administering commonly used global cognitive screens, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).¹⁵

In semistructured interviews, only 7% of senior medical students were comfortable assessing behavioral problems associated with dementia. Most were not aware of any validated rating scale to assess neuropsychiatric symptoms. Similarly, only 7% of students were comfortable assessing caregiver burden, and most were not aware of any validated rating scale to assess caregiver burden. Only 1 in 5 students were comfortable using 2 cognitive screens to assess cognitive deficits. Many students stated that they were not routinely expected to perform common cognitive screens, such as the MMSE during their medical training except students who had expressed an interest in psychiatry and were expected to be proficient in the MMSE. Most students were making common mistakes, such as converting the 3-command task to 3 individual single commands, helping too much with serial 7s, and giving too much positive feedback throughout the test.

Discussion

Significant knowledge gaps regarding dementia were found in our study, which is in keeping with other studies in the area. Dementia knowledge deficits among medical trainees have been identified in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the US.^6-9

In our study, a brief multicomponent experiential curriculum improved senior medical students’ perception and self-efficacy in diagnosing dementia. This is in keeping with other studies, such as the PAIRS Program.⁷ Findings from another study indicated that education for geriatric- oriented physicians should focus on experiential learning components through observation and interaction with older adults.¹⁶

A background of direct experience with older adults is associated with more positive attitudes toward older adults and increased interest in geriatric medicine.¹⁶ In our study, the exposure was brief; therefore, the results could not be compared with other long-term exposure studies. However, even with this brief intervention most students reported being comfortable with assessing caregiver burden (78%), behavioral problems of dementia (88%), and using ≥ 2 cognitive screens (92%). Comfortable in dementia assessment increased after the intervention from 10% to 96%. This finding is encouraging because brief multicomponent dementia education can be devised easily. This finding needs to be taken with caution because we did not conduct a formal skills evaluation.

A unique component of our experience was to learn medical students’ perception about the impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms on the trajectory, outcomes, and management of dementia. These symptoms included delusions, hallucinations, agitation, depression, anxiety, euphoria, apathy, disinhibition, irritability, motor disturbance, nighttime behaviors, and appetite and eating. Less than half the students thought that neuropsychiatric symptoms had a significant impact on dementia before the experience. Through didactics, systematic assessment of neuropsychiatric symptoms and interaction with caregivers, > 98% of students learned that these symptoms have a significant impact on dementia management.

This experience also emphasized the role of several disciplines in dementia assessment and management. Students’ experience positively influenced appreciation of the role of the memory clinic team. Our hope is that students will seek input from social workers, neuropsychologists, and other team members when working with patients with dementia or their caregivers. The common reason why primary care physicians focus on an exclusive medical model is the time commitment for communicating with an interdisciplinary team. Students experienced the feasibility of the interdisciplinary team involvement and how technology could be used for synchronous and asynchronous communication among team members. Medical students also were introduced to complex billing codes used when ≥ 3 disciplines assess/manage a geriatric patient.

Limitations

This study is limited by the lack of long-term follow-up evaluations, no metrics for practice changes clinical outcomes, and implementation in a single medical school. The postexperience evaluation in this study was performed immediately after the intervention. Long-term follow-up would inform whether the changes noted are durable. Because of the brief nature of our intervention, we do not believe that it would change practice in clinical care. It will be informative to follow this cohort of students to study whether their clinical approach to dementia care changes. The intervention needs to be replicated in other medical schools and in more heterogeneous groups to generalize the results of the study.

Conclusions

Senior medical students are not routinely exposed to interdisciplinary team assessments. Dementia knowledge gaps were prevalent in this cohort of senior medical students. Providing interdisciplinary geriatric educational experience improved their perception of their ability to assess for dementia and their recognition of the roles of interdisciplinary team members. Plans are in place to continue and expand the program to other complex geriatric syndromes.

Acknowledgments
Poster presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society. Oral presentation at the same meeting as part of the select Geriatric Education Methods and Materials Swap workshop.