User login
Cloud-based systems can help secure patient information
Physicians hardly need the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to remind them how important it is to safeguard their patients’ records. Physicians understand that patient information is sensitive and it would be disastrous if their files became public or fell into the wrong hands. However, the use of health information technology to record patient information, although beneficial for medical professionals and patients, poses risks to patient privacy.1
HIPAA requires clinicians and health care systems to protect patient information, whether it is maintained in an electronic health records system, stored on a mobile device, or transmitted via e-mail to another physician. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will increase HIPAA audits this year to make sure that medical practices have taken measures to protect their patients’ health information. Physicians and other clinicians can take advantage of cloud-based file-sharing services, such as Dropbox, without running afoul of HIPAA.
Mobile computing, the cloud, and patient information: A risky combination
Although mobile computing and cloud-based file-sharing sites such as Dropbox and Google Drive allow physicians to take notes on a tablet, annotate those notes on a laptop, and share them with a physician who views them on his (her) desktop, this free flow of information makes it more difficult to stay compliant with HIPAA.
Dropbox and other file-sharing services encrypt documents while they’re stored in the cloud but the files are unprotected when downloaded to a device. E-mail, which isn’t as versatile or useful as these services, also is not HIPAA-compliant unless the files are encrypted.
Often, small psychiatric practices use these online services and e-mail even if they’re aware of the risks because they don’t have time to research a better solution. Or they might resort to faxing or even snail-mailing documents, losing out on the increased productivity that the cloud can provide.
Secure technologies satisfy auditors
A number of tools exist to help physicians seamlessly integrate the encryption necessary to keep their patients’ records safe and meet HIPAA security requirements. Here’s a look at 3 options.
Sookasa (plus Dropbox). One option is to invest in a software product designed to encrypt documents shared through cloud-based services. This type of software creates a compliance “shield” around files stored on the cloud, converting files into HIPAA safe havens. The files are encrypted when synced to new devices or shared with other users, meaning they’re protected no matter where they reside.2
Sookasa is an online service that encrypts files shared and stored in Dropbox. The company plans to extend its support to other popular cloud services such as Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive. Sookasa also audits and controls access to encrypted files, so that patient data can be blocked even if a device is lost or sto len. Sookasa users also can share files via e-mail with added encryption and authentication to make sure only the authorized receiver gets the documents.2
TigerText. Regular SMS text messages on your mobile phone aren’t compliant with HIPAA, but TigerText replicates the texting experience in a secure way. Instead of being stored on your mobile phone, messages sent through TigerText are stored on the company’s servers. Messages sent through the application can’t be saved, copied, or forwarded to other recipients. TigerText messages also are deleted, either after a set time period or after they’ve been read. Because the messages aren’t stored on phones, a lost or stolen phone won’t result in a data breach and a HIPAA violation.3
Secure text messaging won’t help physicians store and manage large amounts of patient files, but it’s a must-have if they use texting to communicate about patient care.
DataMotion SecureMail provides e-mail encryption services to health care organizations and other enterprises. Using a decryption key, authorized users can open and read the encrypted e-mails, which are HIPAA-compliant.4 This method is superior to other services that encrypt e-mails on the server. Several providers, such as Google’s e-mail encryption service Postini, ensure that e-mails are encrypted when they are stored on the server; however, the body text and attachments included in specific e-mails are not encrypted on the senders’ and receivers’ devices. If you lose a connected device, you would still be at risk of a HIPAA breach.
DataMotion’s SecureMail provides detailed tracking and logging of e-mails, which is necessary for auditing purposes. The product also works on mobile devices.
E-mail is a helpful tool for quickly sharing files and an e-mail encryption product such as SecureMail makes it possible to do so securely. Other e-mail encryption products do not securely store and back up all files in a centralized way.
DisclosureDr. Cidon is CEO and Co-founder of Sookasa.
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification adult program. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/ audit. Accessed February 12, 2015.
2. Sookasa Web site. How it works. https://www.sookasa. com/how-it-works. Accessed February 12, 2015.
3. TigerText Web site. http://www.tigertext.com. Accessed February 12, 2015.
4. DataMotion Web site. http://datamotion.com/products/ securemail/securemail-desktop. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Physicians hardly need the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to remind them how important it is to safeguard their patients’ records. Physicians understand that patient information is sensitive and it would be disastrous if their files became public or fell into the wrong hands. However, the use of health information technology to record patient information, although beneficial for medical professionals and patients, poses risks to patient privacy.1
HIPAA requires clinicians and health care systems to protect patient information, whether it is maintained in an electronic health records system, stored on a mobile device, or transmitted via e-mail to another physician. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will increase HIPAA audits this year to make sure that medical practices have taken measures to protect their patients’ health information. Physicians and other clinicians can take advantage of cloud-based file-sharing services, such as Dropbox, without running afoul of HIPAA.
Mobile computing, the cloud, and patient information: A risky combination
Although mobile computing and cloud-based file-sharing sites such as Dropbox and Google Drive allow physicians to take notes on a tablet, annotate those notes on a laptop, and share them with a physician who views them on his (her) desktop, this free flow of information makes it more difficult to stay compliant with HIPAA.
Dropbox and other file-sharing services encrypt documents while they’re stored in the cloud but the files are unprotected when downloaded to a device. E-mail, which isn’t as versatile or useful as these services, also is not HIPAA-compliant unless the files are encrypted.
Often, small psychiatric practices use these online services and e-mail even if they’re aware of the risks because they don’t have time to research a better solution. Or they might resort to faxing or even snail-mailing documents, losing out on the increased productivity that the cloud can provide.
Secure technologies satisfy auditors
A number of tools exist to help physicians seamlessly integrate the encryption necessary to keep their patients’ records safe and meet HIPAA security requirements. Here’s a look at 3 options.
Sookasa (plus Dropbox). One option is to invest in a software product designed to encrypt documents shared through cloud-based services. This type of software creates a compliance “shield” around files stored on the cloud, converting files into HIPAA safe havens. The files are encrypted when synced to new devices or shared with other users, meaning they’re protected no matter where they reside.2
Sookasa is an online service that encrypts files shared and stored in Dropbox. The company plans to extend its support to other popular cloud services such as Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive. Sookasa also audits and controls access to encrypted files, so that patient data can be blocked even if a device is lost or sto len. Sookasa users also can share files via e-mail with added encryption and authentication to make sure only the authorized receiver gets the documents.2
TigerText. Regular SMS text messages on your mobile phone aren’t compliant with HIPAA, but TigerText replicates the texting experience in a secure way. Instead of being stored on your mobile phone, messages sent through TigerText are stored on the company’s servers. Messages sent through the application can’t be saved, copied, or forwarded to other recipients. TigerText messages also are deleted, either after a set time period or after they’ve been read. Because the messages aren’t stored on phones, a lost or stolen phone won’t result in a data breach and a HIPAA violation.3
Secure text messaging won’t help physicians store and manage large amounts of patient files, but it’s a must-have if they use texting to communicate about patient care.
DataMotion SecureMail provides e-mail encryption services to health care organizations and other enterprises. Using a decryption key, authorized users can open and read the encrypted e-mails, which are HIPAA-compliant.4 This method is superior to other services that encrypt e-mails on the server. Several providers, such as Google’s e-mail encryption service Postini, ensure that e-mails are encrypted when they are stored on the server; however, the body text and attachments included in specific e-mails are not encrypted on the senders’ and receivers’ devices. If you lose a connected device, you would still be at risk of a HIPAA breach.
DataMotion’s SecureMail provides detailed tracking and logging of e-mails, which is necessary for auditing purposes. The product also works on mobile devices.
E-mail is a helpful tool for quickly sharing files and an e-mail encryption product such as SecureMail makes it possible to do so securely. Other e-mail encryption products do not securely store and back up all files in a centralized way.
DisclosureDr. Cidon is CEO and Co-founder of Sookasa.
Physicians hardly need the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to remind them how important it is to safeguard their patients’ records. Physicians understand that patient information is sensitive and it would be disastrous if their files became public or fell into the wrong hands. However, the use of health information technology to record patient information, although beneficial for medical professionals and patients, poses risks to patient privacy.1
HIPAA requires clinicians and health care systems to protect patient information, whether it is maintained in an electronic health records system, stored on a mobile device, or transmitted via e-mail to another physician. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will increase HIPAA audits this year to make sure that medical practices have taken measures to protect their patients’ health information. Physicians and other clinicians can take advantage of cloud-based file-sharing services, such as Dropbox, without running afoul of HIPAA.
Mobile computing, the cloud, and patient information: A risky combination
Although mobile computing and cloud-based file-sharing sites such as Dropbox and Google Drive allow physicians to take notes on a tablet, annotate those notes on a laptop, and share them with a physician who views them on his (her) desktop, this free flow of information makes it more difficult to stay compliant with HIPAA.
Dropbox and other file-sharing services encrypt documents while they’re stored in the cloud but the files are unprotected when downloaded to a device. E-mail, which isn’t as versatile or useful as these services, also is not HIPAA-compliant unless the files are encrypted.
Often, small psychiatric practices use these online services and e-mail even if they’re aware of the risks because they don’t have time to research a better solution. Or they might resort to faxing or even snail-mailing documents, losing out on the increased productivity that the cloud can provide.
Secure technologies satisfy auditors
A number of tools exist to help physicians seamlessly integrate the encryption necessary to keep their patients’ records safe and meet HIPAA security requirements. Here’s a look at 3 options.
Sookasa (plus Dropbox). One option is to invest in a software product designed to encrypt documents shared through cloud-based services. This type of software creates a compliance “shield” around files stored on the cloud, converting files into HIPAA safe havens. The files are encrypted when synced to new devices or shared with other users, meaning they’re protected no matter where they reside.2
Sookasa is an online service that encrypts files shared and stored in Dropbox. The company plans to extend its support to other popular cloud services such as Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive. Sookasa also audits and controls access to encrypted files, so that patient data can be blocked even if a device is lost or sto len. Sookasa users also can share files via e-mail with added encryption and authentication to make sure only the authorized receiver gets the documents.2
TigerText. Regular SMS text messages on your mobile phone aren’t compliant with HIPAA, but TigerText replicates the texting experience in a secure way. Instead of being stored on your mobile phone, messages sent through TigerText are stored on the company’s servers. Messages sent through the application can’t be saved, copied, or forwarded to other recipients. TigerText messages also are deleted, either after a set time period or after they’ve been read. Because the messages aren’t stored on phones, a lost or stolen phone won’t result in a data breach and a HIPAA violation.3
Secure text messaging won’t help physicians store and manage large amounts of patient files, but it’s a must-have if they use texting to communicate about patient care.
DataMotion SecureMail provides e-mail encryption services to health care organizations and other enterprises. Using a decryption key, authorized users can open and read the encrypted e-mails, which are HIPAA-compliant.4 This method is superior to other services that encrypt e-mails on the server. Several providers, such as Google’s e-mail encryption service Postini, ensure that e-mails are encrypted when they are stored on the server; however, the body text and attachments included in specific e-mails are not encrypted on the senders’ and receivers’ devices. If you lose a connected device, you would still be at risk of a HIPAA breach.
DataMotion’s SecureMail provides detailed tracking and logging of e-mails, which is necessary for auditing purposes. The product also works on mobile devices.
E-mail is a helpful tool for quickly sharing files and an e-mail encryption product such as SecureMail makes it possible to do so securely. Other e-mail encryption products do not securely store and back up all files in a centralized way.
DisclosureDr. Cidon is CEO and Co-founder of Sookasa.
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification adult program. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/ audit. Accessed February 12, 2015.
2. Sookasa Web site. How it works. https://www.sookasa. com/how-it-works. Accessed February 12, 2015.
3. TigerText Web site. http://www.tigertext.com. Accessed February 12, 2015.
4. DataMotion Web site. http://datamotion.com/products/ securemail/securemail-desktop. Accessed February 12, 2015.
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HIPAA privacy, security, and breach notification adult program. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/ audit. Accessed February 12, 2015.
2. Sookasa Web site. How it works. https://www.sookasa. com/how-it-works. Accessed February 12, 2015.
3. TigerText Web site. http://www.tigertext.com. Accessed February 12, 2015.
4. DataMotion Web site. http://datamotion.com/products/ securemail/securemail-desktop. Accessed February 12, 2015.
On-site reporting from the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS) 41st Meeting
3/24/15, Day 3 at SGS
Many topics, many learning opportunities
The morning’s focus topics at SGS were divided up in small-group academic roundtables, with 15 experts in the field providing authoritative know-how and guidance to attendees. Topics ranged from tips for in-bag tissue extraction, endometriosis surgery, surviving health care transformation, cost-effectiveness, and single-site surgery to innovative treatments for fecal incontinence.
In the main hall, the fourth scientific session included oral presentations and videos that focused on anatomic landmarks and variations and included data presentation from an interesting prospective randomized trial in which the authors found bladder support is reduced by pregnancy, regardless of delivery method.
The highlight of the morning was certainly the debate over "power" morcellation. Dr. Cheryl Iglesia moderated in her charming and comical manner. Dr. Andrew Sokol and Dr. Jubilee Brown argued that power morcellation still should be available to a select group of appropriately chosen, low-risk women, and backed their arguments up with solid data. Dr. Eric Sokol, Andrew’s twin (and better looking, per him) brother, and Dr. Carl Zimmerman argued against the use of power morcellation, instead urging everyone in the audience to perform more vaginal hysterectomies. Though spirited and based largely on sound medical evidence, the debate did not have a clear winner. The overall consensus seemed to be that this controversial topic needed further evaluation and more data to support either claim.
"Sesame street graduates” and andragogy
We were then honored to have Vice President for Education, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Dr. Sandra Carson as the esteemed TeLinde Lecturer. Her talk, “Teaching Medicine and Surgery to Sesame Street Graduates,” outlined the challenges in teaching surgery to a new generation of ObGyn residents as well as identified opportunities for improvement. She restated what seems to be the running theme at SGS this year: young faculty and residents are losing the skill for vaginal hysterectomy.
Dr. Carson introduced members of the audience to the adult theory of learning called andragogy. Adults like active learning, which is problem centered, rather than content oriented; linking new concepts to prior experience; and learning what is relevant to them, she noted. Then she shared ACOG’s strategies for applying these learning principles in resident education. She discussed ACOG’s recently formed Vaginal Hysterectomy Teaching Taskforce, which has put together a simulation consortium online toolkit and a surgical skills module to help educate residents on vaginal hysterectomy techniques. This toolkit and module can be accessed by doing a quick search after signing into the ACOG Web site.
Dr. Carson, a reproductive endocrinologist formerly at Brown University, is also now an honorary member of SGS.
Wise words from a wise physician
In his presidential address Dr. Stephen Metz acknowledged that all physicians are subject to even subtle “conflicts of interest,” reminding us to treat our patients as people not as a disease or a procedure.
“What does my patient really want from me? She wants me to get to know her to develop the right recommendations for her,” he said. His career has spanned multiple decades, and his service to the field of gynecology is outstanding. He received a well-deserved standing ovation at the end of his address.
Sport and socialization a necessity in sunny Florida!
The afternoon adjourned after the business meeting, and members were able to play golf, tennis, paddleboard in Winter Park, or just relax at the resort. Congratulations to the winners of the golf tournament (Drs. Hopkins, Rasmussen, Hurd, and Flora) and the tennis tournament (Dr. Ted Lee)!
Everyone convened at the outside terrace for the evening “Mojito Night in the Caribbean” reception, sharing good times, cocktails, and hors d’oeuvres. Proceeds from each ticket sold helped support Surgeons Helping Advance Research and Education (SHARE).
Tomorrow looks to be an excellent conclusion to a well-planned and very well-executed meeting. Kudos, and large thanks, to the SGS leadership.
3/23/15, Day 2 at SGS
Surgeons from 17 countries converge
The first day of the SGS scientific sessions was another energetic and interactive day. Sixteen new SGS members were recognized and welcomed in the main conference hall. Dr. Charles Rardin presented a brief overview and some basic statistics related to this year’s meeting—the largest ever in the history of SGS. A total of 401 attendees representing 17 countries are here in Orlando for SGS 2015!
In the first scientific session, oral presentations touched on the subjects of preoperative dexamethasone use, vaginal packing, surgical site infections, and a new treatment modality for fecal incontinence. An excellent technique video on laparoscopic ureterolysis by Dr. Cara King then followed, in which she demonstrated excellent surgical skills with amazingly clear anatomy. Her video was recognized later in the day with a well-deserved award—congratulations!
A short break in the exhibit hall allowed for mingling with other attendees, many of whom have been active on social media surrounding the meeting, and for visiting the booths of the industry sponsors. The second scientific session then picked up where the first left off, with more scientifically sound research presented on such topics as mechanical bowel preparation use in laparoscopy and pelvic floor disorders in women with gynecologic malignancies.
No room for fads in gyn surgery
Dr. David Grimes, a true leader in our field, provided an exceptional keynote address, “Is Teaching Evidence-Based Surgery Possible?" He shared his expertise of evidence-based medicine, and described (in sometimes very comical but always stimulating and provocative terms) the need for incorporating evidence-based surgery in gynecology. He urged us to strive to do best by our patients by applying evidenced-based practices rather than following fads and gizmos.
Gyn surgery training: Have we reached a “perfect storm”?
The afternoon brought with it a panel discussion on "Teaching the Next Generation of GYN Surgeons," with Dr. Hal Lawrence moderating and Dr. Mark Walters and Dr. Dee Fenner serving as panelists. They discussed the future of ObGyn residency training in great detail: increasing subspecialization, a stable birth rate, declining hysterectomy rates, increasing safety and quality monitoring, and increased access to data and informed consumers. All of these trends were highlighted as reasons for a perfect storm in gynecologic surgery training. In addition, the panel presented some surprising statistics:
- The majority of hysterectomies in the United States are being done by surgeons who perform less than 1 per month.
- The higher volume surgeons provide higher value and tend to utilize more minimally invasive approaches.
Videofest!
The scientific day concluded with a videofest that included complex robotic, laparoscopic, hysteroscopic, cystoscopic, and vaginal surgeries, demonstrating the surgical talents and ingenuity of SGS members.
Simultaneously, the Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) met to update their ongoing projects and to review new proposals. The meeting sought to unite FPRMS and MIS fellows to conduct multicenter studies. This was an enlightening and engaging session, which should give everyone great hope to see the creativity and energy of the next generation of researchers.
A grounder for attendees
All in attendance were treated to a unique, eye-opening, motivational, and very moving talk by Professor (and Sir) Ajay Rane, MD, PhD from Australia on female genital mutilation. He stressed the importance of respecting women for who they are, not what they do.
“My idea of feminism is applauding a woman who gives birth. Celebrate women for who they are," he said. He highlighted the work being done by his team in Australia and India, and urged everyone in attendance to become more aware of the staggering statistics and reality of female genital mutilation.
The jam-packed day wrapped with the awards ceremony in the main hall. Lifelong mentors were honored by their mentees and SGS President Dr. Stephen Metz and Scientific Program Chair Dr. Charles Rardin presented various awards to those who had submitted and presented novel and groundbreaking research.
One last surprise
The President’s Reception in the exhibit hall was lively, with meeting sponsors, colleagues, and friends in attendance. And, of course, a visit from special guest! (Thanks to SGS Fellow Christina Saad, MD @XtinaSaad for the pic!)
See you all tomorrow for another educational, enlightening, and spirited day at #SGS2015!
3/22/15. DAY 1 AT SGS
A focus on evidence-based medicine
Strong analytic skills (of your own research as well as the published literature) translates to better patient care, was the underlying theme of the opening postgraduate course here in Orlando, Florida, for day 1 of the 41st annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.
Building on the success of last year’s course on evidence-based medicine (EBM), Dr. Vivian Sung and Dr. Ike Rahn put together an amazing team to review and apply the principles of so-called EBM, a workshop that was in part sponsored by ABOG.
A quick introduction to EBM principles by Dr. Thomas Wheeler was followed by small break-out groups, where attendees used the PICO-DD model to define a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Duration, and study Design. Further talks focused on the benefits and caveats of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), surrogate and intermediate outcomes, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Dr. Ethan Balk cautioned us to consider the costly and underpowered RCT, and lack of generalizability needed to define rigorous study inclusion and outcome criteria. Dr. Sung then pointed out that, while the perfect surrogate outcome would allow us to shorten study lengths (and save money), the seduction of association and causation can lead to some questionable conclusions.
When using a clinical practice guideline, Dr. Miles Murphy indicated that a systematic review needs to be included, although a meta-analysis is not always required. The poor quality and paucity of RCTs for most patient populations is what limits us.
Dr. Rahn gave an excellent presentation on subgroup analysis, recommending to attendees that they perform these analyses cautiously, describe which groups are analyzed, and have statistical back-up for power and P value calculations.
Dr. Kristen Matteson then spoke about interpreting the literature on screening and diagnostic tests, giving a thorough but understandable review of the basics of statistics. Dr. John Wong rounded out the course, suggesting that because RCTs are expensive and comprise less than 5% of published studies, the analysis of observational studies as RCTs would allow us to better inform our patients and our colleagues on the best treatments, using patient-centered outcomes, efficacy data, and multiple providers. He urged us all to be more skeptical and ask critical questions when dealing with evidence in medicine.
Sharpening ultrasonography skills
Simultaneously, others attended a hands-on learning course on comprehensive pelvic floor ultrasonography, including transperineal, endovaginal, and endoanal imaging, organized by Dr. Abbas Shobeiri.
Tips for the difficult hysterectomy
Dr. Ted Lee (with help from Drs. Arnold P. Advincula, Rosanne Kho, and Matthew Seidhoff) prepared a surgical tutorial on laparoscopic, robotic, and vaginal strategies and techniques for approaching the difficult hysterectomy. The course was phenomenal, as described by many of the members fortunate enough to learn some of the tips and tricks demonstrated by the master surgeons.
Training for the NIH application process
Following the postgraduate courses, Dr. Katherine Hartmann led an “NIH Application Training Camp,” an offering supported by SGS research donations and a generous donation from Dr. Holly Richter. Dr. Hartmann provided in-depth insight into the world of NIH grant funding and provided background prep for a K or R award application. A mock NIH application study section, in which two actual applications were reviewed, demystified the process of grant review (and rejection).
A social end to day 1
To end the first day, a welcome reception was held where residents, fellows, and attendings from different fields of ObGyn mingled and shared drinks, stories, and good laughs.
The "social" activities continue on social media for the rest of the conference. Follow #SGS2015, @gynsurgery, @obgmanagement, and @sukrantmehta for more!
3/24/15, Day 3 at SGS
Many topics, many learning opportunities
The morning’s focus topics at SGS were divided up in small-group academic roundtables, with 15 experts in the field providing authoritative know-how and guidance to attendees. Topics ranged from tips for in-bag tissue extraction, endometriosis surgery, surviving health care transformation, cost-effectiveness, and single-site surgery to innovative treatments for fecal incontinence.
In the main hall, the fourth scientific session included oral presentations and videos that focused on anatomic landmarks and variations and included data presentation from an interesting prospective randomized trial in which the authors found bladder support is reduced by pregnancy, regardless of delivery method.
The highlight of the morning was certainly the debate over "power" morcellation. Dr. Cheryl Iglesia moderated in her charming and comical manner. Dr. Andrew Sokol and Dr. Jubilee Brown argued that power morcellation still should be available to a select group of appropriately chosen, low-risk women, and backed their arguments up with solid data. Dr. Eric Sokol, Andrew’s twin (and better looking, per him) brother, and Dr. Carl Zimmerman argued against the use of power morcellation, instead urging everyone in the audience to perform more vaginal hysterectomies. Though spirited and based largely on sound medical evidence, the debate did not have a clear winner. The overall consensus seemed to be that this controversial topic needed further evaluation and more data to support either claim.
"Sesame street graduates” and andragogy
We were then honored to have Vice President for Education, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Dr. Sandra Carson as the esteemed TeLinde Lecturer. Her talk, “Teaching Medicine and Surgery to Sesame Street Graduates,” outlined the challenges in teaching surgery to a new generation of ObGyn residents as well as identified opportunities for improvement. She restated what seems to be the running theme at SGS this year: young faculty and residents are losing the skill for vaginal hysterectomy.
Dr. Carson introduced members of the audience to the adult theory of learning called andragogy. Adults like active learning, which is problem centered, rather than content oriented; linking new concepts to prior experience; and learning what is relevant to them, she noted. Then she shared ACOG’s strategies for applying these learning principles in resident education. She discussed ACOG’s recently formed Vaginal Hysterectomy Teaching Taskforce, which has put together a simulation consortium online toolkit and a surgical skills module to help educate residents on vaginal hysterectomy techniques. This toolkit and module can be accessed by doing a quick search after signing into the ACOG Web site.
Dr. Carson, a reproductive endocrinologist formerly at Brown University, is also now an honorary member of SGS.
Wise words from a wise physician
In his presidential address Dr. Stephen Metz acknowledged that all physicians are subject to even subtle “conflicts of interest,” reminding us to treat our patients as people not as a disease or a procedure.
“What does my patient really want from me? She wants me to get to know her to develop the right recommendations for her,” he said. His career has spanned multiple decades, and his service to the field of gynecology is outstanding. He received a well-deserved standing ovation at the end of his address.
Sport and socialization a necessity in sunny Florida!
The afternoon adjourned after the business meeting, and members were able to play golf, tennis, paddleboard in Winter Park, or just relax at the resort. Congratulations to the winners of the golf tournament (Drs. Hopkins, Rasmussen, Hurd, and Flora) and the tennis tournament (Dr. Ted Lee)!
Everyone convened at the outside terrace for the evening “Mojito Night in the Caribbean” reception, sharing good times, cocktails, and hors d’oeuvres. Proceeds from each ticket sold helped support Surgeons Helping Advance Research and Education (SHARE).
Tomorrow looks to be an excellent conclusion to a well-planned and very well-executed meeting. Kudos, and large thanks, to the SGS leadership.
3/23/15, Day 2 at SGS
Surgeons from 17 countries converge
The first day of the SGS scientific sessions was another energetic and interactive day. Sixteen new SGS members were recognized and welcomed in the main conference hall. Dr. Charles Rardin presented a brief overview and some basic statistics related to this year’s meeting—the largest ever in the history of SGS. A total of 401 attendees representing 17 countries are here in Orlando for SGS 2015!
In the first scientific session, oral presentations touched on the subjects of preoperative dexamethasone use, vaginal packing, surgical site infections, and a new treatment modality for fecal incontinence. An excellent technique video on laparoscopic ureterolysis by Dr. Cara King then followed, in which she demonstrated excellent surgical skills with amazingly clear anatomy. Her video was recognized later in the day with a well-deserved award—congratulations!
A short break in the exhibit hall allowed for mingling with other attendees, many of whom have been active on social media surrounding the meeting, and for visiting the booths of the industry sponsors. The second scientific session then picked up where the first left off, with more scientifically sound research presented on such topics as mechanical bowel preparation use in laparoscopy and pelvic floor disorders in women with gynecologic malignancies.
No room for fads in gyn surgery
Dr. David Grimes, a true leader in our field, provided an exceptional keynote address, “Is Teaching Evidence-Based Surgery Possible?" He shared his expertise of evidence-based medicine, and described (in sometimes very comical but always stimulating and provocative terms) the need for incorporating evidence-based surgery in gynecology. He urged us to strive to do best by our patients by applying evidenced-based practices rather than following fads and gizmos.
Gyn surgery training: Have we reached a “perfect storm”?
The afternoon brought with it a panel discussion on "Teaching the Next Generation of GYN Surgeons," with Dr. Hal Lawrence moderating and Dr. Mark Walters and Dr. Dee Fenner serving as panelists. They discussed the future of ObGyn residency training in great detail: increasing subspecialization, a stable birth rate, declining hysterectomy rates, increasing safety and quality monitoring, and increased access to data and informed consumers. All of these trends were highlighted as reasons for a perfect storm in gynecologic surgery training. In addition, the panel presented some surprising statistics:
- The majority of hysterectomies in the United States are being done by surgeons who perform less than 1 per month.
- The higher volume surgeons provide higher value and tend to utilize more minimally invasive approaches.
Videofest!
The scientific day concluded with a videofest that included complex robotic, laparoscopic, hysteroscopic, cystoscopic, and vaginal surgeries, demonstrating the surgical talents and ingenuity of SGS members.
Simultaneously, the Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) met to update their ongoing projects and to review new proposals. The meeting sought to unite FPRMS and MIS fellows to conduct multicenter studies. This was an enlightening and engaging session, which should give everyone great hope to see the creativity and energy of the next generation of researchers.
A grounder for attendees
All in attendance were treated to a unique, eye-opening, motivational, and very moving talk by Professor (and Sir) Ajay Rane, MD, PhD from Australia on female genital mutilation. He stressed the importance of respecting women for who they are, not what they do.
“My idea of feminism is applauding a woman who gives birth. Celebrate women for who they are," he said. He highlighted the work being done by his team in Australia and India, and urged everyone in attendance to become more aware of the staggering statistics and reality of female genital mutilation.
The jam-packed day wrapped with the awards ceremony in the main hall. Lifelong mentors were honored by their mentees and SGS President Dr. Stephen Metz and Scientific Program Chair Dr. Charles Rardin presented various awards to those who had submitted and presented novel and groundbreaking research.
One last surprise
The President’s Reception in the exhibit hall was lively, with meeting sponsors, colleagues, and friends in attendance. And, of course, a visit from special guest! (Thanks to SGS Fellow Christina Saad, MD @XtinaSaad for the pic!)
See you all tomorrow for another educational, enlightening, and spirited day at #SGS2015!
3/22/15. DAY 1 AT SGS
A focus on evidence-based medicine
Strong analytic skills (of your own research as well as the published literature) translates to better patient care, was the underlying theme of the opening postgraduate course here in Orlando, Florida, for day 1 of the 41st annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.
Building on the success of last year’s course on evidence-based medicine (EBM), Dr. Vivian Sung and Dr. Ike Rahn put together an amazing team to review and apply the principles of so-called EBM, a workshop that was in part sponsored by ABOG.
A quick introduction to EBM principles by Dr. Thomas Wheeler was followed by small break-out groups, where attendees used the PICO-DD model to define a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Duration, and study Design. Further talks focused on the benefits and caveats of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), surrogate and intermediate outcomes, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Dr. Ethan Balk cautioned us to consider the costly and underpowered RCT, and lack of generalizability needed to define rigorous study inclusion and outcome criteria. Dr. Sung then pointed out that, while the perfect surrogate outcome would allow us to shorten study lengths (and save money), the seduction of association and causation can lead to some questionable conclusions.
When using a clinical practice guideline, Dr. Miles Murphy indicated that a systematic review needs to be included, although a meta-analysis is not always required. The poor quality and paucity of RCTs for most patient populations is what limits us.
Dr. Rahn gave an excellent presentation on subgroup analysis, recommending to attendees that they perform these analyses cautiously, describe which groups are analyzed, and have statistical back-up for power and P value calculations.
Dr. Kristen Matteson then spoke about interpreting the literature on screening and diagnostic tests, giving a thorough but understandable review of the basics of statistics. Dr. John Wong rounded out the course, suggesting that because RCTs are expensive and comprise less than 5% of published studies, the analysis of observational studies as RCTs would allow us to better inform our patients and our colleagues on the best treatments, using patient-centered outcomes, efficacy data, and multiple providers. He urged us all to be more skeptical and ask critical questions when dealing with evidence in medicine.
Sharpening ultrasonography skills
Simultaneously, others attended a hands-on learning course on comprehensive pelvic floor ultrasonography, including transperineal, endovaginal, and endoanal imaging, organized by Dr. Abbas Shobeiri.
Tips for the difficult hysterectomy
Dr. Ted Lee (with help from Drs. Arnold P. Advincula, Rosanne Kho, and Matthew Seidhoff) prepared a surgical tutorial on laparoscopic, robotic, and vaginal strategies and techniques for approaching the difficult hysterectomy. The course was phenomenal, as described by many of the members fortunate enough to learn some of the tips and tricks demonstrated by the master surgeons.
Training for the NIH application process
Following the postgraduate courses, Dr. Katherine Hartmann led an “NIH Application Training Camp,” an offering supported by SGS research donations and a generous donation from Dr. Holly Richter. Dr. Hartmann provided in-depth insight into the world of NIH grant funding and provided background prep for a K or R award application. A mock NIH application study section, in which two actual applications were reviewed, demystified the process of grant review (and rejection).
A social end to day 1
To end the first day, a welcome reception was held where residents, fellows, and attendings from different fields of ObGyn mingled and shared drinks, stories, and good laughs.
The "social" activities continue on social media for the rest of the conference. Follow #SGS2015, @gynsurgery, @obgmanagement, and @sukrantmehta for more!
3/24/15, Day 3 at SGS
Many topics, many learning opportunities
The morning’s focus topics at SGS were divided up in small-group academic roundtables, with 15 experts in the field providing authoritative know-how and guidance to attendees. Topics ranged from tips for in-bag tissue extraction, endometriosis surgery, surviving health care transformation, cost-effectiveness, and single-site surgery to innovative treatments for fecal incontinence.
In the main hall, the fourth scientific session included oral presentations and videos that focused on anatomic landmarks and variations and included data presentation from an interesting prospective randomized trial in which the authors found bladder support is reduced by pregnancy, regardless of delivery method.
The highlight of the morning was certainly the debate over "power" morcellation. Dr. Cheryl Iglesia moderated in her charming and comical manner. Dr. Andrew Sokol and Dr. Jubilee Brown argued that power morcellation still should be available to a select group of appropriately chosen, low-risk women, and backed their arguments up with solid data. Dr. Eric Sokol, Andrew’s twin (and better looking, per him) brother, and Dr. Carl Zimmerman argued against the use of power morcellation, instead urging everyone in the audience to perform more vaginal hysterectomies. Though spirited and based largely on sound medical evidence, the debate did not have a clear winner. The overall consensus seemed to be that this controversial topic needed further evaluation and more data to support either claim.
"Sesame street graduates” and andragogy
We were then honored to have Vice President for Education, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Dr. Sandra Carson as the esteemed TeLinde Lecturer. Her talk, “Teaching Medicine and Surgery to Sesame Street Graduates,” outlined the challenges in teaching surgery to a new generation of ObGyn residents as well as identified opportunities for improvement. She restated what seems to be the running theme at SGS this year: young faculty and residents are losing the skill for vaginal hysterectomy.
Dr. Carson introduced members of the audience to the adult theory of learning called andragogy. Adults like active learning, which is problem centered, rather than content oriented; linking new concepts to prior experience; and learning what is relevant to them, she noted. Then she shared ACOG’s strategies for applying these learning principles in resident education. She discussed ACOG’s recently formed Vaginal Hysterectomy Teaching Taskforce, which has put together a simulation consortium online toolkit and a surgical skills module to help educate residents on vaginal hysterectomy techniques. This toolkit and module can be accessed by doing a quick search after signing into the ACOG Web site.
Dr. Carson, a reproductive endocrinologist formerly at Brown University, is also now an honorary member of SGS.
Wise words from a wise physician
In his presidential address Dr. Stephen Metz acknowledged that all physicians are subject to even subtle “conflicts of interest,” reminding us to treat our patients as people not as a disease or a procedure.
“What does my patient really want from me? She wants me to get to know her to develop the right recommendations for her,” he said. His career has spanned multiple decades, and his service to the field of gynecology is outstanding. He received a well-deserved standing ovation at the end of his address.
Sport and socialization a necessity in sunny Florida!
The afternoon adjourned after the business meeting, and members were able to play golf, tennis, paddleboard in Winter Park, or just relax at the resort. Congratulations to the winners of the golf tournament (Drs. Hopkins, Rasmussen, Hurd, and Flora) and the tennis tournament (Dr. Ted Lee)!
Everyone convened at the outside terrace for the evening “Mojito Night in the Caribbean” reception, sharing good times, cocktails, and hors d’oeuvres. Proceeds from each ticket sold helped support Surgeons Helping Advance Research and Education (SHARE).
Tomorrow looks to be an excellent conclusion to a well-planned and very well-executed meeting. Kudos, and large thanks, to the SGS leadership.
3/23/15, Day 2 at SGS
Surgeons from 17 countries converge
The first day of the SGS scientific sessions was another energetic and interactive day. Sixteen new SGS members were recognized and welcomed in the main conference hall. Dr. Charles Rardin presented a brief overview and some basic statistics related to this year’s meeting—the largest ever in the history of SGS. A total of 401 attendees representing 17 countries are here in Orlando for SGS 2015!
In the first scientific session, oral presentations touched on the subjects of preoperative dexamethasone use, vaginal packing, surgical site infections, and a new treatment modality for fecal incontinence. An excellent technique video on laparoscopic ureterolysis by Dr. Cara King then followed, in which she demonstrated excellent surgical skills with amazingly clear anatomy. Her video was recognized later in the day with a well-deserved award—congratulations!
A short break in the exhibit hall allowed for mingling with other attendees, many of whom have been active on social media surrounding the meeting, and for visiting the booths of the industry sponsors. The second scientific session then picked up where the first left off, with more scientifically sound research presented on such topics as mechanical bowel preparation use in laparoscopy and pelvic floor disorders in women with gynecologic malignancies.
No room for fads in gyn surgery
Dr. David Grimes, a true leader in our field, provided an exceptional keynote address, “Is Teaching Evidence-Based Surgery Possible?" He shared his expertise of evidence-based medicine, and described (in sometimes very comical but always stimulating and provocative terms) the need for incorporating evidence-based surgery in gynecology. He urged us to strive to do best by our patients by applying evidenced-based practices rather than following fads and gizmos.
Gyn surgery training: Have we reached a “perfect storm”?
The afternoon brought with it a panel discussion on "Teaching the Next Generation of GYN Surgeons," with Dr. Hal Lawrence moderating and Dr. Mark Walters and Dr. Dee Fenner serving as panelists. They discussed the future of ObGyn residency training in great detail: increasing subspecialization, a stable birth rate, declining hysterectomy rates, increasing safety and quality monitoring, and increased access to data and informed consumers. All of these trends were highlighted as reasons for a perfect storm in gynecologic surgery training. In addition, the panel presented some surprising statistics:
- The majority of hysterectomies in the United States are being done by surgeons who perform less than 1 per month.
- The higher volume surgeons provide higher value and tend to utilize more minimally invasive approaches.
Videofest!
The scientific day concluded with a videofest that included complex robotic, laparoscopic, hysteroscopic, cystoscopic, and vaginal surgeries, demonstrating the surgical talents and ingenuity of SGS members.
Simultaneously, the Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) met to update their ongoing projects and to review new proposals. The meeting sought to unite FPRMS and MIS fellows to conduct multicenter studies. This was an enlightening and engaging session, which should give everyone great hope to see the creativity and energy of the next generation of researchers.
A grounder for attendees
All in attendance were treated to a unique, eye-opening, motivational, and very moving talk by Professor (and Sir) Ajay Rane, MD, PhD from Australia on female genital mutilation. He stressed the importance of respecting women for who they are, not what they do.
“My idea of feminism is applauding a woman who gives birth. Celebrate women for who they are," he said. He highlighted the work being done by his team in Australia and India, and urged everyone in attendance to become more aware of the staggering statistics and reality of female genital mutilation.
The jam-packed day wrapped with the awards ceremony in the main hall. Lifelong mentors were honored by their mentees and SGS President Dr. Stephen Metz and Scientific Program Chair Dr. Charles Rardin presented various awards to those who had submitted and presented novel and groundbreaking research.
One last surprise
The President’s Reception in the exhibit hall was lively, with meeting sponsors, colleagues, and friends in attendance. And, of course, a visit from special guest! (Thanks to SGS Fellow Christina Saad, MD @XtinaSaad for the pic!)
See you all tomorrow for another educational, enlightening, and spirited day at #SGS2015!
3/22/15. DAY 1 AT SGS
A focus on evidence-based medicine
Strong analytic skills (of your own research as well as the published literature) translates to better patient care, was the underlying theme of the opening postgraduate course here in Orlando, Florida, for day 1 of the 41st annual meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.
Building on the success of last year’s course on evidence-based medicine (EBM), Dr. Vivian Sung and Dr. Ike Rahn put together an amazing team to review and apply the principles of so-called EBM, a workshop that was in part sponsored by ABOG.
A quick introduction to EBM principles by Dr. Thomas Wheeler was followed by small break-out groups, where attendees used the PICO-DD model to define a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Duration, and study Design. Further talks focused on the benefits and caveats of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), surrogate and intermediate outcomes, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Dr. Ethan Balk cautioned us to consider the costly and underpowered RCT, and lack of generalizability needed to define rigorous study inclusion and outcome criteria. Dr. Sung then pointed out that, while the perfect surrogate outcome would allow us to shorten study lengths (and save money), the seduction of association and causation can lead to some questionable conclusions.
When using a clinical practice guideline, Dr. Miles Murphy indicated that a systematic review needs to be included, although a meta-analysis is not always required. The poor quality and paucity of RCTs for most patient populations is what limits us.
Dr. Rahn gave an excellent presentation on subgroup analysis, recommending to attendees that they perform these analyses cautiously, describe which groups are analyzed, and have statistical back-up for power and P value calculations.
Dr. Kristen Matteson then spoke about interpreting the literature on screening and diagnostic tests, giving a thorough but understandable review of the basics of statistics. Dr. John Wong rounded out the course, suggesting that because RCTs are expensive and comprise less than 5% of published studies, the analysis of observational studies as RCTs would allow us to better inform our patients and our colleagues on the best treatments, using patient-centered outcomes, efficacy data, and multiple providers. He urged us all to be more skeptical and ask critical questions when dealing with evidence in medicine.
Sharpening ultrasonography skills
Simultaneously, others attended a hands-on learning course on comprehensive pelvic floor ultrasonography, including transperineal, endovaginal, and endoanal imaging, organized by Dr. Abbas Shobeiri.
Tips for the difficult hysterectomy
Dr. Ted Lee (with help from Drs. Arnold P. Advincula, Rosanne Kho, and Matthew Seidhoff) prepared a surgical tutorial on laparoscopic, robotic, and vaginal strategies and techniques for approaching the difficult hysterectomy. The course was phenomenal, as described by many of the members fortunate enough to learn some of the tips and tricks demonstrated by the master surgeons.
Training for the NIH application process
Following the postgraduate courses, Dr. Katherine Hartmann led an “NIH Application Training Camp,” an offering supported by SGS research donations and a generous donation from Dr. Holly Richter. Dr. Hartmann provided in-depth insight into the world of NIH grant funding and provided background prep for a K or R award application. A mock NIH application study section, in which two actual applications were reviewed, demystified the process of grant review (and rejection).
A social end to day 1
To end the first day, a welcome reception was held where residents, fellows, and attendings from different fields of ObGyn mingled and shared drinks, stories, and good laughs.
The "social" activities continue on social media for the rest of the conference. Follow #SGS2015, @gynsurgery, @obgmanagement, and @sukrantmehta for more!
Parenting a child with emotional and behavioral problems
Over the past several years, there has been increasing amounts of research documenting the caregiving challenges that accompany the day-to-day parenting of a child with special health needs and/or chronic medical conditions. Children who are diagnosed with emotional and behavioral problems (ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to autism – which also can be considered chronic conditions), can pose parenting challenges for even the most healthy, supportive, and committed parents. From the point of receiving a diagnosis to daily management of the range of symptoms and attempting to coordinate care with various providers, the emotional stress experienced by caregivers can be quite burdensome and may affect the functioning of the entire family. In an effort to achieve successful treatment outcomes for the child, it’s important to be mindful of this emotional stress and provide parents with tools to foster their own wellness and mental health while mitigating the risk for them developing their own health concerns.
Case summary
Bridget is a 10-year-old girl who presents with her single mother for a psychiatric consultation. Since early childhood, Bridget has demonstrated an array of behaviors that have affected her ability to engage with others socially; she was thought to be a temperamentally shy and sensitive toddler, and in elementary school, her mother describes the emergence of odd mental status changes and accompanying motor movements that were later diagnosed as complex-partial epilepsy. Since this diagnosis at the age of 6 years, despite receiving various antiepileptic treatment, Bridget has continued to present with an intractable seizure disorder. She is now prescribed a combination of benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, and other antiepileptic agents, but still has marked functional impairments. Behaviorally, it appears that Bridget has experienced some regression over the years and has been recently tested to have low-average intelligence and a neurocognitive profile characterized by attentional difficulties, executive impairments, and significant processing deficits.
Because of her complicated presentation, Bridget has been unable to attend school-based academic instruction, and her escalating levels of generalized worry have limited her ability to reliably interact with individuals outside of the family. These challenges also have posed difficulties for providers to perform thorough evaluations and provide Bridget with psychosocial interventions to address her anxiety and self-regulatory deficits. All in all, Bridget is a diagnostically complicated young girl. Her mother wishes to “figure things out,” and acknowledges having trouble managing her daughter’s increasingly defiant and unpredictable behaviors. In the past, setting limits and placing stress on Bridget have been thought to be etiologically related to seizure onset. Additionally, Bridget’s mother has been unable to find her own employment while providing care for her daughter and reports that financially, she isn’t sure how she can make ends meet while providing Bridget with medical marijuana. Bridget’s mother’s composure during the evaluation is applauded (particularly when her daughter’s defiant actions are readily appreciated), but she admits to feeling “exhausted.”
Discussion
Bridget’s case illustrates not only the complexities in attempting to understand and diagnose multifaceted neuropsychiatric phenomena, but also the struggles experienced by families who are challenged economically, socially, psychologically, and emotionally as a result of their child’s difficulties. Although caregiving and parenting is rife with rewarding opportunities for many family members, the provision of such nurturance can undoubtedly place parents at risk for significant hardships. Studies have demonstrated that caregiving demands are associated with poor health outcomes in adult caregivers (Ann. Behav. Med. 1997;19:110-6), and maternal cortisol levels in mothers of older children with autism were found to be significantly lower than normal and the hormonal dysregulation was associated with their child’s behavioral profile. Such findings are similar to those recognized in combat soldiers and others who experience enduring psychological distress (J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2010; 40:457-69).
Upon meeting with Bridget, it became clear that her mother required additional support and services to help care for her daughter’s difficult needs. Through seeking a diagnosis for her daughter, Bridget’s mother also was pursuing an understanding of her daughter’s strengths and struggles, and looking to partner with a provider who might be able to help her navigate the often complicated system of care. By gathering a comprehensive family history (assessing what mom’s vulnerabilities may be for developing her own mental health issues) and thoroughly assessing her current functioning with the Adult Self-Report and the Parenting Stress Index, as a provider, I was better informed to offer family-based treatment recommendations. Through self-reporting, Bridget’s mother endorsed her own mood complaints, occasional substance use, and a constellation of anxiety-based difficulties. We had a thoughtful discussion pertaining to elements of grief, fears, and guilt, which helped to lay the foundation for later exploring how Bridget may best be cared for in the future (such as residential placement). Bridget’s mother shared that she initially felt like a failure for seeking help and not “being able to parent” her daughter; supportive techniques were used to provide her with reassurance and validation.
Using Bridget’s mother’s strengths (resiliency, being a strong advocate for her daughter), other recommendations also were offered to help her to more effectively parent her child and avoid burnout. Not inclusive of suggestions directed towards Bridget individually, these recommendations included:
• Having mom seek her own psychotherapeutic and psychiatric care. Goals of her treatment would be to support her own wellness (through exercise, mindfulness, engagement in positive activities) and focus on developing healthy relationships. By getting her own anxiety under control, assessing her own parenting and coping styles, and additionally obtaining psychoeducation about anxiety disorders in children, mom is primed to develop more successful ways to address Bridget’s defiance and avoid enabling her daughter’s excessive worry while encouraging her to be more socially active.
• Finding respite providers for Bridget. Then mom has more opportunities to seek employment and participate in other out-of-the-home activities.
• Developing a relationship with the school district. This way mom can obtain appropriate supports and accommodations for Bridget to be educated outside the home.
• Exploring community resources through local agencies. This would help mom plan for the future, examine possible sources of financial support, and perhaps most importantly, obtain a treatment team leader and care coordinator.
• Enhancing social supports. This can be done via connections to local support groups.
Clinical pearl
It’s not surprising that parents of children with special needs experience high levels of stress. Be aware of how such stress can affect a parent’s ability to care for their child, and be mindful that a child’s wellness can be significantly mediated by parental wellness and health. When designing treatment plans, routinely assess family caregivers’ stress levels (including that of siblings and fathers) and evaluate other indicators of stress (such as sleep disturbances, weight change, apathy, and expression of negative emotion). Advocate for programs and systems of care that can address both parental and child mental health issues in a coordinated manner that also enhances family cohesion, reduces social isolation, and decreases parental marginalization.
Dr. Dickerson, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the director of the university’s autism diagnostic clinic. Contact Dr. Dickerson at [email protected].
Over the past several years, there has been increasing amounts of research documenting the caregiving challenges that accompany the day-to-day parenting of a child with special health needs and/or chronic medical conditions. Children who are diagnosed with emotional and behavioral problems (ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to autism – which also can be considered chronic conditions), can pose parenting challenges for even the most healthy, supportive, and committed parents. From the point of receiving a diagnosis to daily management of the range of symptoms and attempting to coordinate care with various providers, the emotional stress experienced by caregivers can be quite burdensome and may affect the functioning of the entire family. In an effort to achieve successful treatment outcomes for the child, it’s important to be mindful of this emotional stress and provide parents with tools to foster their own wellness and mental health while mitigating the risk for them developing their own health concerns.
Case summary
Bridget is a 10-year-old girl who presents with her single mother for a psychiatric consultation. Since early childhood, Bridget has demonstrated an array of behaviors that have affected her ability to engage with others socially; she was thought to be a temperamentally shy and sensitive toddler, and in elementary school, her mother describes the emergence of odd mental status changes and accompanying motor movements that were later diagnosed as complex-partial epilepsy. Since this diagnosis at the age of 6 years, despite receiving various antiepileptic treatment, Bridget has continued to present with an intractable seizure disorder. She is now prescribed a combination of benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, and other antiepileptic agents, but still has marked functional impairments. Behaviorally, it appears that Bridget has experienced some regression over the years and has been recently tested to have low-average intelligence and a neurocognitive profile characterized by attentional difficulties, executive impairments, and significant processing deficits.
Because of her complicated presentation, Bridget has been unable to attend school-based academic instruction, and her escalating levels of generalized worry have limited her ability to reliably interact with individuals outside of the family. These challenges also have posed difficulties for providers to perform thorough evaluations and provide Bridget with psychosocial interventions to address her anxiety and self-regulatory deficits. All in all, Bridget is a diagnostically complicated young girl. Her mother wishes to “figure things out,” and acknowledges having trouble managing her daughter’s increasingly defiant and unpredictable behaviors. In the past, setting limits and placing stress on Bridget have been thought to be etiologically related to seizure onset. Additionally, Bridget’s mother has been unable to find her own employment while providing care for her daughter and reports that financially, she isn’t sure how she can make ends meet while providing Bridget with medical marijuana. Bridget’s mother’s composure during the evaluation is applauded (particularly when her daughter’s defiant actions are readily appreciated), but she admits to feeling “exhausted.”
Discussion
Bridget’s case illustrates not only the complexities in attempting to understand and diagnose multifaceted neuropsychiatric phenomena, but also the struggles experienced by families who are challenged economically, socially, psychologically, and emotionally as a result of their child’s difficulties. Although caregiving and parenting is rife with rewarding opportunities for many family members, the provision of such nurturance can undoubtedly place parents at risk for significant hardships. Studies have demonstrated that caregiving demands are associated with poor health outcomes in adult caregivers (Ann. Behav. Med. 1997;19:110-6), and maternal cortisol levels in mothers of older children with autism were found to be significantly lower than normal and the hormonal dysregulation was associated with their child’s behavioral profile. Such findings are similar to those recognized in combat soldiers and others who experience enduring psychological distress (J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2010; 40:457-69).
Upon meeting with Bridget, it became clear that her mother required additional support and services to help care for her daughter’s difficult needs. Through seeking a diagnosis for her daughter, Bridget’s mother also was pursuing an understanding of her daughter’s strengths and struggles, and looking to partner with a provider who might be able to help her navigate the often complicated system of care. By gathering a comprehensive family history (assessing what mom’s vulnerabilities may be for developing her own mental health issues) and thoroughly assessing her current functioning with the Adult Self-Report and the Parenting Stress Index, as a provider, I was better informed to offer family-based treatment recommendations. Through self-reporting, Bridget’s mother endorsed her own mood complaints, occasional substance use, and a constellation of anxiety-based difficulties. We had a thoughtful discussion pertaining to elements of grief, fears, and guilt, which helped to lay the foundation for later exploring how Bridget may best be cared for in the future (such as residential placement). Bridget’s mother shared that she initially felt like a failure for seeking help and not “being able to parent” her daughter; supportive techniques were used to provide her with reassurance and validation.
Using Bridget’s mother’s strengths (resiliency, being a strong advocate for her daughter), other recommendations also were offered to help her to more effectively parent her child and avoid burnout. Not inclusive of suggestions directed towards Bridget individually, these recommendations included:
• Having mom seek her own psychotherapeutic and psychiatric care. Goals of her treatment would be to support her own wellness (through exercise, mindfulness, engagement in positive activities) and focus on developing healthy relationships. By getting her own anxiety under control, assessing her own parenting and coping styles, and additionally obtaining psychoeducation about anxiety disorders in children, mom is primed to develop more successful ways to address Bridget’s defiance and avoid enabling her daughter’s excessive worry while encouraging her to be more socially active.
• Finding respite providers for Bridget. Then mom has more opportunities to seek employment and participate in other out-of-the-home activities.
• Developing a relationship with the school district. This way mom can obtain appropriate supports and accommodations for Bridget to be educated outside the home.
• Exploring community resources through local agencies. This would help mom plan for the future, examine possible sources of financial support, and perhaps most importantly, obtain a treatment team leader and care coordinator.
• Enhancing social supports. This can be done via connections to local support groups.
Clinical pearl
It’s not surprising that parents of children with special needs experience high levels of stress. Be aware of how such stress can affect a parent’s ability to care for their child, and be mindful that a child’s wellness can be significantly mediated by parental wellness and health. When designing treatment plans, routinely assess family caregivers’ stress levels (including that of siblings and fathers) and evaluate other indicators of stress (such as sleep disturbances, weight change, apathy, and expression of negative emotion). Advocate for programs and systems of care that can address both parental and child mental health issues in a coordinated manner that also enhances family cohesion, reduces social isolation, and decreases parental marginalization.
Dr. Dickerson, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the director of the university’s autism diagnostic clinic. Contact Dr. Dickerson at [email protected].
Over the past several years, there has been increasing amounts of research documenting the caregiving challenges that accompany the day-to-day parenting of a child with special health needs and/or chronic medical conditions. Children who are diagnosed with emotional and behavioral problems (ranging from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to autism – which also can be considered chronic conditions), can pose parenting challenges for even the most healthy, supportive, and committed parents. From the point of receiving a diagnosis to daily management of the range of symptoms and attempting to coordinate care with various providers, the emotional stress experienced by caregivers can be quite burdensome and may affect the functioning of the entire family. In an effort to achieve successful treatment outcomes for the child, it’s important to be mindful of this emotional stress and provide parents with tools to foster their own wellness and mental health while mitigating the risk for them developing their own health concerns.
Case summary
Bridget is a 10-year-old girl who presents with her single mother for a psychiatric consultation. Since early childhood, Bridget has demonstrated an array of behaviors that have affected her ability to engage with others socially; she was thought to be a temperamentally shy and sensitive toddler, and in elementary school, her mother describes the emergence of odd mental status changes and accompanying motor movements that were later diagnosed as complex-partial epilepsy. Since this diagnosis at the age of 6 years, despite receiving various antiepileptic treatment, Bridget has continued to present with an intractable seizure disorder. She is now prescribed a combination of benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, and other antiepileptic agents, but still has marked functional impairments. Behaviorally, it appears that Bridget has experienced some regression over the years and has been recently tested to have low-average intelligence and a neurocognitive profile characterized by attentional difficulties, executive impairments, and significant processing deficits.
Because of her complicated presentation, Bridget has been unable to attend school-based academic instruction, and her escalating levels of generalized worry have limited her ability to reliably interact with individuals outside of the family. These challenges also have posed difficulties for providers to perform thorough evaluations and provide Bridget with psychosocial interventions to address her anxiety and self-regulatory deficits. All in all, Bridget is a diagnostically complicated young girl. Her mother wishes to “figure things out,” and acknowledges having trouble managing her daughter’s increasingly defiant and unpredictable behaviors. In the past, setting limits and placing stress on Bridget have been thought to be etiologically related to seizure onset. Additionally, Bridget’s mother has been unable to find her own employment while providing care for her daughter and reports that financially, she isn’t sure how she can make ends meet while providing Bridget with medical marijuana. Bridget’s mother’s composure during the evaluation is applauded (particularly when her daughter’s defiant actions are readily appreciated), but she admits to feeling “exhausted.”
Discussion
Bridget’s case illustrates not only the complexities in attempting to understand and diagnose multifaceted neuropsychiatric phenomena, but also the struggles experienced by families who are challenged economically, socially, psychologically, and emotionally as a result of their child’s difficulties. Although caregiving and parenting is rife with rewarding opportunities for many family members, the provision of such nurturance can undoubtedly place parents at risk for significant hardships. Studies have demonstrated that caregiving demands are associated with poor health outcomes in adult caregivers (Ann. Behav. Med. 1997;19:110-6), and maternal cortisol levels in mothers of older children with autism were found to be significantly lower than normal and the hormonal dysregulation was associated with their child’s behavioral profile. Such findings are similar to those recognized in combat soldiers and others who experience enduring psychological distress (J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2010; 40:457-69).
Upon meeting with Bridget, it became clear that her mother required additional support and services to help care for her daughter’s difficult needs. Through seeking a diagnosis for her daughter, Bridget’s mother also was pursuing an understanding of her daughter’s strengths and struggles, and looking to partner with a provider who might be able to help her navigate the often complicated system of care. By gathering a comprehensive family history (assessing what mom’s vulnerabilities may be for developing her own mental health issues) and thoroughly assessing her current functioning with the Adult Self-Report and the Parenting Stress Index, as a provider, I was better informed to offer family-based treatment recommendations. Through self-reporting, Bridget’s mother endorsed her own mood complaints, occasional substance use, and a constellation of anxiety-based difficulties. We had a thoughtful discussion pertaining to elements of grief, fears, and guilt, which helped to lay the foundation for later exploring how Bridget may best be cared for in the future (such as residential placement). Bridget’s mother shared that she initially felt like a failure for seeking help and not “being able to parent” her daughter; supportive techniques were used to provide her with reassurance and validation.
Using Bridget’s mother’s strengths (resiliency, being a strong advocate for her daughter), other recommendations also were offered to help her to more effectively parent her child and avoid burnout. Not inclusive of suggestions directed towards Bridget individually, these recommendations included:
• Having mom seek her own psychotherapeutic and psychiatric care. Goals of her treatment would be to support her own wellness (through exercise, mindfulness, engagement in positive activities) and focus on developing healthy relationships. By getting her own anxiety under control, assessing her own parenting and coping styles, and additionally obtaining psychoeducation about anxiety disorders in children, mom is primed to develop more successful ways to address Bridget’s defiance and avoid enabling her daughter’s excessive worry while encouraging her to be more socially active.
• Finding respite providers for Bridget. Then mom has more opportunities to seek employment and participate in other out-of-the-home activities.
• Developing a relationship with the school district. This way mom can obtain appropriate supports and accommodations for Bridget to be educated outside the home.
• Exploring community resources through local agencies. This would help mom plan for the future, examine possible sources of financial support, and perhaps most importantly, obtain a treatment team leader and care coordinator.
• Enhancing social supports. This can be done via connections to local support groups.
Clinical pearl
It’s not surprising that parents of children with special needs experience high levels of stress. Be aware of how such stress can affect a parent’s ability to care for their child, and be mindful that a child’s wellness can be significantly mediated by parental wellness and health. When designing treatment plans, routinely assess family caregivers’ stress levels (including that of siblings and fathers) and evaluate other indicators of stress (such as sleep disturbances, weight change, apathy, and expression of negative emotion). Advocate for programs and systems of care that can address both parental and child mental health issues in a coordinated manner that also enhances family cohesion, reduces social isolation, and decreases parental marginalization.
Dr. Dickerson, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont, Burlington. He is the director of the university’s autism diagnostic clinic. Contact Dr. Dickerson at [email protected].
Study supports sequential MRD monitoring in certain patients
Photo by Chad McNeeley
Based on results of a prospective study, investigators are advocating sequential minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who have detectable MRD after remission induction therapy.
The researchers said their findings show that MRD levels during remission induction treatment have important therapeutic indications, even in the context of MRD-guided therapy, as patients with higher MRD levels have worse outcomes.
Ching-Hon Pui, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and his colleagues described the findings in The Lancet Oncology.
The team analyzed 498 pediatric patients newly diagnosed with ALL, 492 of whom (99%) attained a complete remission following induction therapy and 491 of whom were monitored for MRD.
The researchers first estimated patients’ risk of relapse according to baseline clinical and laboratory features, provisionally classifying them as having a low, standard, or high risk of relapse.
But the investigators also took MRD levels into consideration. They measured MRD on days 19 and 46 of remission induction, on week 7 of maintenance treatment, and on weeks 17, 48, and 120 (the end of treatment).
The team found that 10-year event-free survival (EFS) was significantly worse for patients with 1% or greater MRD levels on day 19, regardless of their initial risk assessment. Ten-year EFS was 64.1% in these patients, compared to 90.7% in patients with lower or no detectable MRD (P<0.001).
Thirteen percent of patients who were deemed low-risk initially and 28% of patients deemed standard-risk initially had 1% or higher MRD levels on day 19. And these levels were associated with worse 10-year EFS.
In the provisional low-risk group, EFS was 69.2% in the high-MRD patients and 95.5% in the low-MRD patients (P<0.001). And in the provisional standard-risk group, 10-year EFS was 65.1% and 82.9%, respectively (P=0.01).
MRD levels at day 46 also appeared to have a bearing on EFS. For patients in the provisional low-risk group who had 1% or higher MRD on day 19 but became MRD-negative on day 46, 10-year EFS was 88.9%, compared to 59.2% for other provisionally low-risk patients who had detectable MRD on day 46 (P=0.02).
MRD levels on days 19 and 46 led to the reclassification of 50 patients from low-risk to a higher risk group that warranted more intensive therapy. The researchers credited the change with boosting survival.
“This analysis shows that MRD-directed therapy clearly contributed to the unprecedented high rates of long-term survival that patients in this study achieved,” Dr Pui said. “MRD proved to be a powerful way to identify high-risk patients who needed more intensive therapy and helped us avoid over-treatment of low-risk patients by reducing their exposure to chemotherapy.”
Still, MRD assessments at days 19 and 46 were not perfect predictors of patient outcomes. Of the patients who were MRD negative after remission induction, MRD re-emerged in 6 patients—4 of the 382 patients studied on week 7, 1 of the 448 studied at week 17, and 1 of the 437 studied at week 48. All but 1 of these patients died despite additional treatment.
On the other hand, relapse occurred in 2 of the 11 patients who had decreasing MRD levels between the end of induction and week 7 of maintenance therapy and were treated with chemotherapy alone.
Taking these results together, the investigators concluded that measuring MRD at days 19 and 46 was sufficient to guide the treatment of most pediatric ALL patients. However, MRD measurements should continue to guide treatment for patients with detectable MRD on day 46.
Photo by Chad McNeeley
Based on results of a prospective study, investigators are advocating sequential minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who have detectable MRD after remission induction therapy.
The researchers said their findings show that MRD levels during remission induction treatment have important therapeutic indications, even in the context of MRD-guided therapy, as patients with higher MRD levels have worse outcomes.
Ching-Hon Pui, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and his colleagues described the findings in The Lancet Oncology.
The team analyzed 498 pediatric patients newly diagnosed with ALL, 492 of whom (99%) attained a complete remission following induction therapy and 491 of whom were monitored for MRD.
The researchers first estimated patients’ risk of relapse according to baseline clinical and laboratory features, provisionally classifying them as having a low, standard, or high risk of relapse.
But the investigators also took MRD levels into consideration. They measured MRD on days 19 and 46 of remission induction, on week 7 of maintenance treatment, and on weeks 17, 48, and 120 (the end of treatment).
The team found that 10-year event-free survival (EFS) was significantly worse for patients with 1% or greater MRD levels on day 19, regardless of their initial risk assessment. Ten-year EFS was 64.1% in these patients, compared to 90.7% in patients with lower or no detectable MRD (P<0.001).
Thirteen percent of patients who were deemed low-risk initially and 28% of patients deemed standard-risk initially had 1% or higher MRD levels on day 19. And these levels were associated with worse 10-year EFS.
In the provisional low-risk group, EFS was 69.2% in the high-MRD patients and 95.5% in the low-MRD patients (P<0.001). And in the provisional standard-risk group, 10-year EFS was 65.1% and 82.9%, respectively (P=0.01).
MRD levels at day 46 also appeared to have a bearing on EFS. For patients in the provisional low-risk group who had 1% or higher MRD on day 19 but became MRD-negative on day 46, 10-year EFS was 88.9%, compared to 59.2% for other provisionally low-risk patients who had detectable MRD on day 46 (P=0.02).
MRD levels on days 19 and 46 led to the reclassification of 50 patients from low-risk to a higher risk group that warranted more intensive therapy. The researchers credited the change with boosting survival.
“This analysis shows that MRD-directed therapy clearly contributed to the unprecedented high rates of long-term survival that patients in this study achieved,” Dr Pui said. “MRD proved to be a powerful way to identify high-risk patients who needed more intensive therapy and helped us avoid over-treatment of low-risk patients by reducing their exposure to chemotherapy.”
Still, MRD assessments at days 19 and 46 were not perfect predictors of patient outcomes. Of the patients who were MRD negative after remission induction, MRD re-emerged in 6 patients—4 of the 382 patients studied on week 7, 1 of the 448 studied at week 17, and 1 of the 437 studied at week 48. All but 1 of these patients died despite additional treatment.
On the other hand, relapse occurred in 2 of the 11 patients who had decreasing MRD levels between the end of induction and week 7 of maintenance therapy and were treated with chemotherapy alone.
Taking these results together, the investigators concluded that measuring MRD at days 19 and 46 was sufficient to guide the treatment of most pediatric ALL patients. However, MRD measurements should continue to guide treatment for patients with detectable MRD on day 46.
Photo by Chad McNeeley
Based on results of a prospective study, investigators are advocating sequential minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who have detectable MRD after remission induction therapy.
The researchers said their findings show that MRD levels during remission induction treatment have important therapeutic indications, even in the context of MRD-guided therapy, as patients with higher MRD levels have worse outcomes.
Ching-Hon Pui, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and his colleagues described the findings in The Lancet Oncology.
The team analyzed 498 pediatric patients newly diagnosed with ALL, 492 of whom (99%) attained a complete remission following induction therapy and 491 of whom were monitored for MRD.
The researchers first estimated patients’ risk of relapse according to baseline clinical and laboratory features, provisionally classifying them as having a low, standard, or high risk of relapse.
But the investigators also took MRD levels into consideration. They measured MRD on days 19 and 46 of remission induction, on week 7 of maintenance treatment, and on weeks 17, 48, and 120 (the end of treatment).
The team found that 10-year event-free survival (EFS) was significantly worse for patients with 1% or greater MRD levels on day 19, regardless of their initial risk assessment. Ten-year EFS was 64.1% in these patients, compared to 90.7% in patients with lower or no detectable MRD (P<0.001).
Thirteen percent of patients who were deemed low-risk initially and 28% of patients deemed standard-risk initially had 1% or higher MRD levels on day 19. And these levels were associated with worse 10-year EFS.
In the provisional low-risk group, EFS was 69.2% in the high-MRD patients and 95.5% in the low-MRD patients (P<0.001). And in the provisional standard-risk group, 10-year EFS was 65.1% and 82.9%, respectively (P=0.01).
MRD levels at day 46 also appeared to have a bearing on EFS. For patients in the provisional low-risk group who had 1% or higher MRD on day 19 but became MRD-negative on day 46, 10-year EFS was 88.9%, compared to 59.2% for other provisionally low-risk patients who had detectable MRD on day 46 (P=0.02).
MRD levels on days 19 and 46 led to the reclassification of 50 patients from low-risk to a higher risk group that warranted more intensive therapy. The researchers credited the change with boosting survival.
“This analysis shows that MRD-directed therapy clearly contributed to the unprecedented high rates of long-term survival that patients in this study achieved,” Dr Pui said. “MRD proved to be a powerful way to identify high-risk patients who needed more intensive therapy and helped us avoid over-treatment of low-risk patients by reducing their exposure to chemotherapy.”
Still, MRD assessments at days 19 and 46 were not perfect predictors of patient outcomes. Of the patients who were MRD negative after remission induction, MRD re-emerged in 6 patients—4 of the 382 patients studied on week 7, 1 of the 448 studied at week 17, and 1 of the 437 studied at week 48. All but 1 of these patients died despite additional treatment.
On the other hand, relapse occurred in 2 of the 11 patients who had decreasing MRD levels between the end of induction and week 7 of maintenance therapy and were treated with chemotherapy alone.
Taking these results together, the investigators concluded that measuring MRD at days 19 and 46 was sufficient to guide the treatment of most pediatric ALL patients. However, MRD measurements should continue to guide treatment for patients with detectable MRD on day 46.
Discovery may aid malaria vaccine development
a red blood cell
Image courtesy of St. Jude
Children’s Research Hospital
Researchers say they have made a major advance in the quest toward a viable malaria vaccine—by uncovering a strategy the immune system employs to protect against malaria infection.
The team discovered how antibodies work in partnership with complement proteins to block Plasmodium falciparum infection.
And they believe this finding will aid the development of vaccine candidates that are already under investigation.
“We have known that antibodies on their own are not highly effective at blocking malaria, so they must be getting help from other parts of the immune system,” said James Beeson, MBBS, PhD, of the Burnet Institute in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
“This new research provides evidence that complement plays a key role in antibody-mediated immunity to blood-stage replication of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in humans.”
Dr Beeson and his colleagues described their research in Immunity.
The team found that acquired and vaccine-induced human antibodies recruited complement to block red blood cell infection and blood-stage replication of P falciparum.
Without complement, many of the antibodies were not functional, and P falciparum merozoites invaded red blood cells. But when the antibodies interacted with complement factors, they were able to prevent invasion and lyse merozoites.
Further investigation revealed that inhibitory activity was mediated predominately by C1q fixation, and merozoite surface proteins (MSPs) 1 and 2 were major targets of antibody-mediated complement-dependent (Ab-C’) inhibition.
To examine the importance of antibody-mediated complement fixation in acquired immunity to malaria, the researchers tested antibodies for C1q fixation in 206 children (ages 5 to 14) living in a malaria-endemic region.
This revealed that complement fixation was strongly associated with protection from clinical malaria and high-density parasitemia.
The researchers also investigated whether Ab-C′ inhibitory activity could be induced by human immunization with a candidate MSP vaccine. They studied 10 immunoglobulin G (IgG) samples from a phase 1 trial of the MSP2-C1 vaccine.
Eight of the IgG samples showed substantial inhibition in normal serum, but not in heat-inactivated serum, which suggests vaccination induced Ab-C’ inhibition. The researchers did not observe inhibition in IgG from pre-vaccinated individuals or placebo-vaccinated samples.
The team said this suggests that MSP2 antibodies induced by vaccination can inhibit P falciparum invasion via Ab-C’ inhibition.
“We have shown that it is possible to effectively generate this protective immune response by immunizing humans with a candidate vaccine,” Dr Beeson said, noting that this “may prove a valuable strategy to prevent the devastating effects of malaria.”
a red blood cell
Image courtesy of St. Jude
Children’s Research Hospital
Researchers say they have made a major advance in the quest toward a viable malaria vaccine—by uncovering a strategy the immune system employs to protect against malaria infection.
The team discovered how antibodies work in partnership with complement proteins to block Plasmodium falciparum infection.
And they believe this finding will aid the development of vaccine candidates that are already under investigation.
“We have known that antibodies on their own are not highly effective at blocking malaria, so they must be getting help from other parts of the immune system,” said James Beeson, MBBS, PhD, of the Burnet Institute in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
“This new research provides evidence that complement plays a key role in antibody-mediated immunity to blood-stage replication of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in humans.”
Dr Beeson and his colleagues described their research in Immunity.
The team found that acquired and vaccine-induced human antibodies recruited complement to block red blood cell infection and blood-stage replication of P falciparum.
Without complement, many of the antibodies were not functional, and P falciparum merozoites invaded red blood cells. But when the antibodies interacted with complement factors, they were able to prevent invasion and lyse merozoites.
Further investigation revealed that inhibitory activity was mediated predominately by C1q fixation, and merozoite surface proteins (MSPs) 1 and 2 were major targets of antibody-mediated complement-dependent (Ab-C’) inhibition.
To examine the importance of antibody-mediated complement fixation in acquired immunity to malaria, the researchers tested antibodies for C1q fixation in 206 children (ages 5 to 14) living in a malaria-endemic region.
This revealed that complement fixation was strongly associated with protection from clinical malaria and high-density parasitemia.
The researchers also investigated whether Ab-C′ inhibitory activity could be induced by human immunization with a candidate MSP vaccine. They studied 10 immunoglobulin G (IgG) samples from a phase 1 trial of the MSP2-C1 vaccine.
Eight of the IgG samples showed substantial inhibition in normal serum, but not in heat-inactivated serum, which suggests vaccination induced Ab-C’ inhibition. The researchers did not observe inhibition in IgG from pre-vaccinated individuals or placebo-vaccinated samples.
The team said this suggests that MSP2 antibodies induced by vaccination can inhibit P falciparum invasion via Ab-C’ inhibition.
“We have shown that it is possible to effectively generate this protective immune response by immunizing humans with a candidate vaccine,” Dr Beeson said, noting that this “may prove a valuable strategy to prevent the devastating effects of malaria.”
a red blood cell
Image courtesy of St. Jude
Children’s Research Hospital
Researchers say they have made a major advance in the quest toward a viable malaria vaccine—by uncovering a strategy the immune system employs to protect against malaria infection.
The team discovered how antibodies work in partnership with complement proteins to block Plasmodium falciparum infection.
And they believe this finding will aid the development of vaccine candidates that are already under investigation.
“We have known that antibodies on their own are not highly effective at blocking malaria, so they must be getting help from other parts of the immune system,” said James Beeson, MBBS, PhD, of the Burnet Institute in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
“This new research provides evidence that complement plays a key role in antibody-mediated immunity to blood-stage replication of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in humans.”
Dr Beeson and his colleagues described their research in Immunity.
The team found that acquired and vaccine-induced human antibodies recruited complement to block red blood cell infection and blood-stage replication of P falciparum.
Without complement, many of the antibodies were not functional, and P falciparum merozoites invaded red blood cells. But when the antibodies interacted with complement factors, they were able to prevent invasion and lyse merozoites.
Further investigation revealed that inhibitory activity was mediated predominately by C1q fixation, and merozoite surface proteins (MSPs) 1 and 2 were major targets of antibody-mediated complement-dependent (Ab-C’) inhibition.
To examine the importance of antibody-mediated complement fixation in acquired immunity to malaria, the researchers tested antibodies for C1q fixation in 206 children (ages 5 to 14) living in a malaria-endemic region.
This revealed that complement fixation was strongly associated with protection from clinical malaria and high-density parasitemia.
The researchers also investigated whether Ab-C′ inhibitory activity could be induced by human immunization with a candidate MSP vaccine. They studied 10 immunoglobulin G (IgG) samples from a phase 1 trial of the MSP2-C1 vaccine.
Eight of the IgG samples showed substantial inhibition in normal serum, but not in heat-inactivated serum, which suggests vaccination induced Ab-C’ inhibition. The researchers did not observe inhibition in IgG from pre-vaccinated individuals or placebo-vaccinated samples.
The team said this suggests that MSP2 antibodies induced by vaccination can inhibit P falciparum invasion via Ab-C’ inhibition.
“We have shown that it is possible to effectively generate this protective immune response by immunizing humans with a candidate vaccine,” Dr Beeson said, noting that this “may prove a valuable strategy to prevent the devastating effects of malaria.”
Clozapine Management for Internists
Clozapine is a second‐generation antipsychotic (SGA) medication that was developed in 1959, introduced to Europe in 1971, and withdrawn from the market in 1975 due to associated concerns for potentially fatal agranulocytosis. In 1989, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved use of clozapine for the management of treatment‐resistant schizophrenia, under strict parameters for complete blood count (CBC) monitoring. Clozapine has since gained an additional FDA indication for reducing suicidal behavior in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder,[1, 2, 3] and displayed superiority to both first generation antipsychotics and other SGA agents in reducing symptom burden.[2, 4, 5]
Clozapine's clinical benefits include lowering mortality in schizophrenia,[6] reducing deaths from ischemic heart disease,[7] curtailing substance use in individuals with psychotic disorders,[8] increasing rates of independent living and meaningful occupational activity, and reducing psychiatric hospitalizations and need for involuntary treatment.[9] Because schizophrenia, itself, is associated with a 15‐ to 20‐year decrease in average lifespan,[10] these benefits of clozapine are particularly salient. Yet the mechanism by which clozapine mitigates otherwise‐refractory psychotic symptoms is a conundrum. Structurally a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine, clozapine has relatively little effect on the dopamine D2 receptor, which has classically been thought to mediate the treatment effect of antipsychotics.[11, 12]
The unique nature of clozapine extends to its adverse effect profile. A significant percentage of patients who discontinue clozapine (17%35.4%) cite medical complications, the most common being seizures, constipation, sedation, and neutropenia.[13, 14] Yet several studies, including the landmark Clinical Antipsychotic Trials for Interventions Effectiveness (CATIE) study, have found that patients were more likely to adhere to clozapine therapy than to other antipsychotics.[2, 15] In the CATIE study, 44% of subjects taking clozapine continued the medication for 18 months, compared to 29% of individuals on olanzapine, 14% on risperidone, and 7% on quetiapine. Median time until discontinuation of clozapine was 10.5 months, significantly longer than for quetiapine (2.8 months) and olanzapine (2.7 months).[2] Because patients who experience clozapine‐related medical complications are likely to present first to the primary care or general hospital setting, internists must be aware of potential iatrogenic effects, and of their implications for psychiatric and medical care. Using case examples, we will examine both common and serious complications associated with clozapine, and discuss recommendations for management, including indications for clozapine discontinuation.
NEUROLOGICAL
Case Vignette 1
Mr. A is a 29‐year‐old man with asthma and schizophrenia who experienced a generalized tonic‐clonic seizure during treatment at a psychiatric facility. The patient started clozapine therapy 5 weeks prior, with gradual titration to 425 mg daily. Mr. A's previous medication trials included olanzapine and chlorpromazine, which rendered little improvement to his chronic auditory hallucinations. Clozapine was temporarily withheld during further neurologic workup, in which both electroencephalogram (EEG) and brain magnetic resonance imaging were unremarkable. After 60 hours, clozapine titration was reinitiated, and valproic acid was started for mood stabilization and seizure prophylaxis. Mr. A was discharged 6 weeks later on clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime, and extended‐release divalproate, 2500 mg at bedtime. The patient suffered no further seizure activity throughout hospitalization and for at least 1 year postdischarge.
Seizures complicate clozapine use in up to 5% of cases, with a dose‐dependent risk pattern.[16] Seizures are most commonly associated with serum clozapine levels above 500 g/L), but have also been reported with lower levels of clozapine and its metabolite norclozapine.[17] Though nonspecific EEG changes (ie, focal or generalized spikes, spike‐wave and polyspike discharges) have been associated with clozapine administration, they do not reliably predict seizure tendency.[17] Prophylaxis with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is not recommended, though AED treatment may be undertaken for patients who experience a seizure while on clozapine. When seizures occur in the context of elevated serum levels, reducing clozapine to the lowest effective dose is preferred over initiating an AED. Although this reduces the potential for exposure to anticonvulsant‐associated adverse effects, it may also introduce the risk of relapsed psychotic symptoms, and therefore requires close monitoring by a psychiatrist. For those who opt to initiate AED therapy, we recommend consideration of each medication's therapeutic and side‐effect profiles based on the patient's medical history and active symptoms. For example, in the case of Mr. A, valproate was used to target concomitant mood symptoms; likewise, patients who experience troublesome weight gain, as well as seizures, may benefit from topiramate. The occurrence of seizures does not preclude continuation of clozapine therapy, in conjunction with an AED[18] and after consideration of potential risks and benefits of use. Clozapine is not contraindicated in patients with well‐controlled epilepsy.[19]
Sedation, the most common neurologic side effect of clozapine, is also dose dependent and often abates during titration.[20] Though clozapine may induce extrapyramidal symptoms, including rigidity, tremor, and dystonia, the risk is considerably lower with clozapine than other antipsychotics, owing to a lesser affinity for D2 receptors. Associated parkinsonism should prompt consideration of dose reduction, in discussion with a psychiatrist, with concurrent monitoring of serum clozapine levels and close follow‐up for emergence of psychotic symptoms. If dose reduction is ineffective, not indicated, or not preferred by the patient, the addition of an anticholinergic medication may be considered (eg, diphenhydramine 2550 mg, benztropine 12 mg). Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, although rare, is life‐threatening and warrants immediate discontinuation of clozapine, though successful rechallenge after has been reported in case reports.[21]
CARDIAC
Case Vignette 2
Mr. B is a 34‐year‐old man with sinus tachycardia, a benign adrenal tumor, and chronic paranoid schizophrenia that had been poorly responsive to numerous antipsychotic trials. During a psychiatric hospitalization for paranoid delusions with aggressive threats toward family, Mr. B was started on clozapine and titrated to 250 mg daily. On day 16 of clozapine therapy, the patient began to experience cough, and several days later, diffuse rhonchi were noted on examination. Complete blood count revealed WBC 20.3 * 103/L, with 37% eosinophils and absolute eosinophil count of 7.51 (increased from 12%/1.90 the week before), and an electrocardiogram showed sinus tachycardia with ST‐segment changes. Mr. B was transferred to the general medical hospital for workup of presumed myocarditis.
Approximately one‐quarter of patients who take clozapine experience sinus tachycardia, which may be related to clozapine's anticholinergic effects causing rebound noradrenergic elevations[22]; persistent or problematic tachycardia may be treated using a cardio‐selective ‐blocker. Clozapine has also been linked to significant increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in 4% of patients (monitoring data); the risk of hypertension increases with the duration of clozapine treatment, and appears to be independent of the patient's weight.[23] Orthostatic hypotension has been reported in 9% of patients on clozapine therapy, though effects can be mitigated with gradual titration, adequate hydration, compression stockings, and patient education. Sinus tachycardia, hypertension, and orthostatic hypotension are not absolute indications to discontinue clozapine; rather, we advocate for treating these side effects while continuing clozapine treatment.[24]
Myocarditis represents the most serious cardiac side effect of clozapine.[25, 26] Although the absolute risk appears to be lower than 0.1%,[24] Kilian et al. calculated a 1000‐to‐2000fold increase in relative risk of myocarditis among patients who take clozapine, compared to the general population.[26] Most cases occur within the first month of treatment, with median time to onset of 15 days. This time course is consistent with an acute immunoglobulin Emediated hypersensitivity (type 1) reaction, and eosinophilic infiltrates have been found on autopsy, consistent with an acute drug reaction.[20]
Because of this early onset, the physician should maintain a particularly high index of suspicion in the first months of treatment, rigorously questioning patients and families about signs and symptoms of cardiac disease. If patients on clozapine present with flu‐like symptoms, fever, myalgia, dizziness, chest pain, dyspnea, tachycardia, palpitations, or other signs or symptoms of heart failure, evaluation for myocarditis should be undertaken.[25] Several centers have utilized cardiac enzymes (e.g., troponin I, troponin T, creatine kinase‐myocardial band) as a universal screen for myocarditis, though this is not a universal practice.[24] Both tachycardia and flu‐like symptoms may be associated with clozapine, particularly during the titration period, and these are normally benign symptoms requiring no intervention. If the diagnosis of myocarditis is made, however, clozapine should be stopped immediately. Myocarditis is often considered to be a contraindication to restarting clozapine, though cases have been reported of successful clozapine rechallenge in patients who had previously experienced myocarditis.[21]
Recommendations for clozapine‐associated electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring have not been standardized. Based on common clinical practice and the time course of serious cardiac complications, we recommend baseline ECG prior to the start of clozapine, with follow‐up ECG 2 to 4 weeks after clozapine initiation, and every 6 months thereafter.
GASTROINTESTINAL
Case Vignette 3
Mr. C is a 61‐year‐old man with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and a history of multiple‐state hospital admissions. He had been maintained on clozapine for 15 years, allowing him to live independently and avoid psychiatric hospitalization. Mr. C was admitted to the general medical hospital with nausea, vomiting, and an inability to tolerate oral intake. He was found to have a high‐grade small‐bowel obstruction, and all oral medications were initially discontinued. After successful management of his acute gastrointestinal presentation and discussion of potential risks and benefits of various treatment options, clozapine was reinitiated along with bulk laxative and stool softening agents.
Affecting 14% to 60% of individuals who are prescribed clozapine, constipation represents the most common associated gastrointestinal complaint.[27] For most patients, this condition is uncomfortable but nonlethal, though it has been implicated in several deaths by aspiration pneumonia and small‐bowel perforation.[28, 29] Providers must screen regularly for constipation and treat aggressively with stimulant laxatives and stool softeners,[18] while reviewing medication lists and, when possible, streamlining extraneous anticholinergic contributors. Clozapine‐prescribed individuals also frequently suffer from gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD), for which behavioral interventions (eg, smoking cessation or remaining upright for 3 hours after meals) should be considered in addition to pharmacologic treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Clozapine therapy may be continued while constipation and GERD are managed medically.
Potentially fatal gastrointestinal hypomotility and small‐bowel obstruction are rare but well‐described complications that occur in up to 0.3% of patients who take clozapine.[27] This effect appears to be dose dependent, and higher blood levels are associated with greater severity of constipation and risk for serious hypomotility.[27] Clozapine should be withheld during treatment for such serious adverse events as ileus or small‐bowel perforation; however, once these conditions have stabilized, clozapine therapy may be reconsidered based on an analysis of potential benefits and risks. If clozapine is withheld, the internist must monitor for acute worsening of mental status, inattention, and disorientation, as clozapine withdrawal‐related delirium has been reported.[30] Ultimately, aggressive treatment of constipation in conjunction with continued clozapine therapy is the recommended course of action.[28]
Given the increased risk of ileus in the postoperative period, it is particularly important for physicians to inquire about preoperative bowel habits and assess for any existing constipation. Careful monitoring of postoperative bowel motility, along with early and aggressive management of constipation, is recommended. Concurrent administration of other constipating agents (eg, opiates, anticholinergics) should be limited to the lowest effective dose.[27] Although transaminitis, hepatitis, and pancreatitis have all been associated with clozapine in case reports, these are rare,[31] and the approach to management should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.
HEMATOLOGIC
Case Vignette 4
Ms. D is a 38‐year‐old woman with a schizoaffective disorder who was started on clozapine after 3 other agents had failed to control her psychotic symptoms and alleviate chronic suicidal thoughts. Baseline CBC revealed serum white blood cell count (WBC) of 7800/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 4700/mm3. In Ms. D's third week of clozapine use, WBC dropped to 4400/mm3 and ANC to 2200/mm3. Repeat lab draw confirmed this, prompting the treatment team to initiate twice‐weekly CBC monitoring. Ms. D's counts continued to fall, and 10 days after the initial drop, WBC was calculated at 1400/mm3 and ANC at 790/mm3. Clozapine was discontinued, and though the patient was asymptomatic, broad‐spectrum antibiotics were initiated. She received daily CBC monitoring until WBC >3000/mm3 and ANC >1500/mm3. An alternate psychotropic medication was initiated several weeks thereafter.
Neutropenia (white blood cell count <3000/mm3) is a common complication that affects approximately 3% of patients who take clozapine.[32] This may be mediated by clozapine's selective impact on the precursors of polymorphonuclear leukocytes, though the mechanism remains unknown.[33] Although neutropenia is not an absolute contraindication for clozapine therapy, guidelines recommend cessation of clozapine when the ANC drops below 1000/mm3.[34] A meta‐analysis of 112 patients who were rechallenged following neutropenia found that 69% tolerated a rechallenge without development of a subsequent dyscrasia.[21]
In the case of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia, several case reports support the continued use of clozapine during cancer treatment[35]; this requires a written request to the pharmaceutical company that manufactures clozapine and documentation of the expected time course and contribution of chemotherapy to neutropenia.[36] Clozapine's association with neutropenia warrants close monitoring in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other causes of immune compromise. Reports of clozapine continuation in HIV‐positive individuals underscore the importance of close collaboration between infectious disease and psychiatry, with specific focus on potential interactions between clozapine and antiretroviral agents and close monitoring of viral load and ANC.[37]
The most feared complication of clozapine remains agranulocytosis, defined as ANC<500/mm3,[33] which occurs in up to 1% of monitored patients. In 1975, clozapine was banned worldwide after 8 fatal cases of agranulocytosis were reported in Finland.[38] The drug was reintroduced for treatment‐resistant schizophrenia with strict monitoring parameters, which has sharply reduced the death rate. One study found 12 actual deaths between 1990 and 1994, compared to the 149 predicted deaths without monitoring.[39]
The risk of agranulocytosis appears to be higher in older adults and in patients with a lower baseline WBC count. Although there are reports of delayed agranulocytosis occurring in patients after up to 19 years of treatment,[40] the incidence of leukopenia is greatest in the first year. Given this high‐risk period, mandatory monitoring is as follows: weekly WBC and neutrophil counts for the first 26 weeks, biweekly counts for the second 26 weeks, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Of note, many of the later cases of agranulocytosis appear to be related to medication coadministration, particularly with valproic acid, though no definitive link has been established.[40]
Treatment of clozapine‐induced agranulocytosis consists of immediate clozapine cessation, and consideration of initiation of prophylactic broad‐spectrum antibiotics and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (such as filgrastim) until the granulocyte count normalizes.[41, 42] Although few case reports describe successful clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of agranulocytosis, the data are sparse, and current practice is to permanently discontinue clozapine if ANC falls below 1000/mm3.[21, 41]
ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS (METABOLIC, RENAL, URINARY)
Moderate to marked weight gain occurs in over 50% of patients treated with clozapine, with average gains of nearly 10% body weight.[43] In a 10‐year follow‐up study of patients treated with clozapine, Henderson et al. reported an average weight gain of 13 kg, with 34% percent of studied patients developing diabetes mellitus. Metabolic side effects of second‐generation antipsychotics, including clozapine, are a well‐documented and troubling phenomenon.[44] Limited evidence supports use of metformin, alongside behavioral therapy, for concerns related to glucose dysregulation.[45] Some patients have also experienced weight loss with adjunctive topiramate use, particularly if they have also suffered seizures.[46]
Urinary incontinence and nocturnal enuresis are both associated with clozapine, but are likely under‐reported because of patient and provider embarrassment; providers also may not think to ask about these specific symptoms. First‐line treatment for nocturnal enuresis is to limit fluids in the evening. Desmopressin has a controversial role in treating nocturnal enuresis owing to its risk of hyponatremia; appropriate monitoring should be implemented if this agent is used.[18]
Clozapine has been associated with acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), although this is thought to be a relatively rare side effect. Drug‐induced AIN typically appears soon after initiation and presents with the clinical triad of rash, fever, and eosinophilia. Given that weekly CBC is mandatory in the initiation phase, eosinophilia is easily detectible and may serve as a marker for potential AIN.[47]
Sialorrhea, particularly during sleep, is a bothersome condition affecting up to one‐third of patients who take clozapine.[48] Although clozapine is strongly anticholinergic, its agonist activity at the M4 muscarinic receptor and antagonism of the alpha‐2 adrenergic receptor are postulated as the mechanisms underlying hypersalivation. Sialorrhea is frequently seen early in treatment and does not appear to be dose dependent.[48] Excessive salivation is typically managed with behavioral interventions (eg, utilizing towels or other absorbent materials on top of bedding). If hypersalivation occurs during the day, chewing sugar‐free gum may increase the rate of swallowing and make symptoms less bothersome. If this does not provide adequate relief, practitioners may consider use of atropine 1% solution administered directly to the oral cavity.[49]
DRUG‐DRUG INTERACTIONS
For hospitalists, who must frequently alter existing medications or add new ones, awareness of potential drug‐drug interactions is crucial. Clozapine is metabolized by the cytochrome p450 system, with predominant metabolism through the isoenzymes 1A2, 3A4, and 2D6.[50] Common medications that induce clozapine metabolism (thereby decreasing clozapine levels) include phenytoin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and corticosteroids. Conversely, stopping these medications after long‐term therapy will raise clozapine levels. Substances that inhibit clozapine metabolism (thereby increasing clozapine levels) include ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, clarithromycin, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, protease inhibitors, verapamil, and grapefruit juice. We recommend caution when concurrently administering other agents that increase risk for agranulocytosis, including carbamazepine, trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole, sulfasalazine, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Cigarette smoking decreases clozapine blood levels by induction of CYP1A2. Patients require a 10% to 30% reduction to clozapine dose during periods of smoking cessation, including when smoking is stopped during inpatient hospitalization.[51] Nicotine replacement therapy does not induce CYP1A2 and therefore does not have a compensatory effect on clozapine levels. On discharge or resumption of smoking, patients may require an increase of their dose of clozapine to maintain adequate antipsychotic effect.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Medical complications are cited as the cause in 20% of clozapine discontinuations; most commonly, these include seizures, severe constipation, somnolence, and neutropenia. Given the high risk of psychiatric morbidity posed by discontinuation, we recommend managing mild‐moderate symptoms and side effects while continuing the drug, when possible (Table 1). We encourage hospitalists to confer with the patient's psychiatrist or the inpatient psychiatry consultation service when making changes to clozapine therapy. Specific recommendations are as follows:
- We advocate withholding clozapine administration pending medical optimization for several conditions, including: small‐bowel obstruction, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, venous thromboembolism, diabetic ketoacidosis, or hyperosmolar coma.
- Clinical scenarios requiring acute discontinuation of clozapine include agranulocytosis and myocarditis. Successful rechallenge with clozapine has been described after both conditions; at the same time, given the high morbidity and mortality of myocarditis and agranulocytosis, re‐initiation of clozapine requires an extensive risk‐benefit discussion with the patient and family, informed consent, and, in the case of agranulocytosis, approval from the national clozapine registry (Table 2).
- Although adjunctive therapy with filgrastim was initially thought to permit a clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of agranulocytosis, case reports on this strategy have been equivocal, and further research is necessary to determine the most effective strategy for management.
Clinical Lab/Study | Frequency of Monitoring | |
---|---|---|
Cardiac | Electrocardiogram | Baseline, 24 weeks after initiation, every 6 months thereafter |
Cardiac enzymes (eg, troponin I) echocardiogram | No standard guidelines, unless clinically indicated | |
Hematologic | Complete blood count with differential | Baseline, then weekly 26 weeks, then every 2 weeks 26 weeks, then every 4 weeks thereafter |
Metabolic | Body mass index; circumference of waist | Baseline, then every 3 to 6 months |
Fasting glucose | Baseline, then every 6 months | |
Fasting lipid panel | Baseline, then yearly | |
Neurologic | Electroencephalogram | No standard guidelines, unless clinically indicated |
Vital signs | Heart rate, blood pressure, temperature | Baseline and at each follow‐up visit |
Requires Acute Clozapine Discontinuation* | Clozapine Interruption During Management | Does Not Typically Require Clozapine Discontinuation |
---|---|---|
| ||
Agranulocytosis (ANC<1.0 109/mm3) | Diabetic complications (eg, ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar coma) | Constipation |
Cardiomyopathy (severe) | Gastrointestinal obstruction, ileus | Diabetes mellitus |
Myocarditis | Neuroleptic malignant syndrome | Gastroesophageal Reflux |
Venous thromboembolism | Hyperlipidemia | |
Hypertension | ||
Orthostatic hypotension | ||
Sedation | ||
Seizures | ||
Sialorrhea | ||
Sinus tachycardia | ||
Urinary changes (eg, enuresis, incontinence) | ||
Weight gain |
CONCLUSION
Clozapine has been a very successful treatment for patients with schizophrenia who have failed other antipsychotic therapies. However, fears of potential side effects and frequent monitoring have limited its use and led to unnecessary discontinuation. To mitigate risk for serious complications, we hope to increase hospitalists' awareness of prevention, monitoring, and treatment of side effects, and to promote comfort with circumstances that warrant continuation or discontinuation of clozapine (Table 3). The hospitalist plays a crucial role in managing these complications as well as conveying information and recommendations to primary care providers; as such, their familiarity with the medication is essential for proper management of individuals who take clozapine.
Take‐Home Points |
---|
1. Clozapine is the gold standard for treatment‐resistant schizophrenia; however, its use is limited by side effects, many of which can be successfully treated by internists. |
2. There are few indications for discontinuing clozapine (myocarditis, small‐bowel obstruction, agranulocytosis). The psychiatry service should be consulted in the event that clozapine is discontinued. |
3. Seizures are not an indication for discontinuing clozapine; instead, we recommend adding an antiepileptic drug. |
4. All second‐generation antipsychotics are associated with diabetes mellitus and significant weight gain. Clozapine is more highly associated with metabolic side effects than many other medications in this class. |
5. Sedation, sialorrhea, and constipation are common and can be managed pharmacologically and with behavioral interventions. |
Disclosure: Nothing to report.
- Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(1):CD000059. , , , .
- Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(4):600–610. , , , et al.
- Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second‐generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):715–723. , , , et al.
- Effects of clozapine on positive and negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151(1):20–26. , , , et al.
- Clozapine for the treatment‐resistant schizophrenic. A double‐blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45(9):789–796. , , , .
- Clozapine treatment for suicidality in schizophrenia: International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(1):82–91. , , , , , .
- 11‐year follow‐up of mortality in patients with schizophrenia: a population‐based cohort study (FIN11 study). Lancet. 2009;374(9690):620–627. , , , et al.
- Clozapine use and relapses of substance use disorder among patients with co‐occurring schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):637–643. , , , , .
- Outcomes for schizophrenia patients with clozapine treatment: how good does it get? J Psychopharmacol. 2009;23(8):957–965. , , .
- http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/MDCdocs/Mortality%20and%20Morbidity%20Final%20Report%208.18.08.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2015. , , , . Morbidity and mortality in people with serious mental illness. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council. Available at:
- Pharmacological actions of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine: a review. Synapse. 1996;24(4):349–394. , .
- Clozapine. A novel antipsychotic agent. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(11):746–754. , .
- Reason for clozapine cessation. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;125(1):39–44. , .
- Termination of clozapine treatment due to medical reasons: when is it warranted and how can it be avoided? J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(6):603–613. , , , .
- Time to discontinuation of antipsychotic drugs in a schizophrenia cohort: influence of current treatment strategies. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014;4(6):228–239. , , , , , .
- Clozapine‐related seizures. Neurology. 1991;41(3):369–371. , , .
- Clozapine‐related EEG changes and seizures: dose and plasma‐level relationships. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2011;1(2):47–66. , , , .
- Review and management of clozapine side effects. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(suppl 8):14–17; discussion 18–19. .
- Epilepsy, psychosis and clozapine. Human Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 2002;17:115–119. , .
- Response of patients with treatment‐refractory schizophrenia to clozapine within three serum level ranges. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153(12):1579–1584. , , , , , .
- When can patients with potentially life‐threatening adverse effects be rechallenged with clozapine? A systematic review of the published literature. Schizophr Res. 2012;134(2–3):180–186. , , , , .
- Clinical profile of clozapine: adverse reactions and agranulocytosis. Psychiatr Q. 1992;63(1):51–70. , .
- Clozapine and hypertension: a chart review of 82 patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(5):686–689. , , , , , .
- Adverse cardiac effects associated with clozapine. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005;25(1):32–41. , , .
- Clozapine induced myocarditis: a rare but fatal complication. Int J Cardiol. 2006;112(2):e5–e6. , , , , .
- Myocarditis and cardiomyopathy associated with clozapine. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1841–1845. , , , .
- Life‐threatening clozapine‐induced gastrointestinal hypomotility: an analysis of 102 cases. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(5):759–768. , , , .
- Fatalities associated with clozapine‐related constipation and bowel obstruction: a literature review and two case reports. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(4):416–419. , , , .
- Death from clozapine‐induced constipation: case report and literature review. Psychosomatics. 2002;43(1):71–73. , , .
- Clozapine: a clinical review of adverse effects and management. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2003;15(1):33–48. , , , , , .
- Beyond white blood cell monitoring: screening in the initial phase of clozapine therapy. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73(10):1307–1312. , , , , .
- Clozapine [package insert]. Sellersville, PA: TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA; 2013. Available at: https://www.clozapineregistry.com/insert.pdf.ashx. Accessed October 27, 2014.
- Clozapine‐induced agranulocytosis. Incidence and risk factors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(3):162–167. , , , , .
- Clozaril (clozapine) prescribing information. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/019758s069s071lbl.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2015.
- Clozapine therapy during cancer treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(1):175. .
- Continuation of clozapine during chemotherapy: a case report and review of literature. Psychosomatics. 2014;55(6):673–679. , , , , .
- Clozapine use in HIV‐infected schizophrenia patients: a case‐based discussion and review. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(6):626–632. , , .
- Letter: clozapine and agranulocytosis. Lancet. 1975;2(7935):611. , , , .
- Effects of the clozapine national registry system on incidence of deaths related to agranulocytosis. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47(1):52–56. .
- White blood cell monitoring during long‐term clozapine treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(4):366–369. , .
- Add‐on filgrastim during clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of clozapine‐related granulocytopenia/agranulocytosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(2):236. , , .
- Add‐on filgrastim during clozapine rechallenge unsuccessful in preventing agranulocytosis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(5):576.e11–12. , , .
- Clozapine‐induced weight gain: prevalence and clinical relevance. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(1):68–72. , , , , , .
- Clozapine, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular risks and mortality: results of a 10‐year naturalistic study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(9):1116–1121. , , , et al.
- Effects of adjunctive metformin on metabolic traits in nondiabetic clozapine‐treated patients with schizophrenia and the effect of metformin discontinuation on body weight: a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(5):e424–e430. , , , et al.
- Topiramate for clozapine‐induced seizures. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158(6):968–969. , , , .
- Clozapine‐induced acute interstitial nephritis. Lancet. 1999;354(9185):1180–1181. , , , , .
- Update on the clinical efficacy and side effects of clozapine. Schizophr Bull. 1991;17(2):247–261. , , , , .
- Clozapine‐induced sialorrhea: pathophysiology and management strategies. Psychopharmacology. 2006;185(3):265–273. , , .
- Clozapine drug‐drug interactions: a review of the literature. Hum Psychopharm Clin. 1997;12(1):5–20. , , .
- The effect of smoking and cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 genetic polymorphism on clozapine clearance and dose requirement. Pharmacogenetics. 2003;13(3):169–172. , , .
Clozapine is a second‐generation antipsychotic (SGA) medication that was developed in 1959, introduced to Europe in 1971, and withdrawn from the market in 1975 due to associated concerns for potentially fatal agranulocytosis. In 1989, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved use of clozapine for the management of treatment‐resistant schizophrenia, under strict parameters for complete blood count (CBC) monitoring. Clozapine has since gained an additional FDA indication for reducing suicidal behavior in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder,[1, 2, 3] and displayed superiority to both first generation antipsychotics and other SGA agents in reducing symptom burden.[2, 4, 5]
Clozapine's clinical benefits include lowering mortality in schizophrenia,[6] reducing deaths from ischemic heart disease,[7] curtailing substance use in individuals with psychotic disorders,[8] increasing rates of independent living and meaningful occupational activity, and reducing psychiatric hospitalizations and need for involuntary treatment.[9] Because schizophrenia, itself, is associated with a 15‐ to 20‐year decrease in average lifespan,[10] these benefits of clozapine are particularly salient. Yet the mechanism by which clozapine mitigates otherwise‐refractory psychotic symptoms is a conundrum. Structurally a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine, clozapine has relatively little effect on the dopamine D2 receptor, which has classically been thought to mediate the treatment effect of antipsychotics.[11, 12]
The unique nature of clozapine extends to its adverse effect profile. A significant percentage of patients who discontinue clozapine (17%35.4%) cite medical complications, the most common being seizures, constipation, sedation, and neutropenia.[13, 14] Yet several studies, including the landmark Clinical Antipsychotic Trials for Interventions Effectiveness (CATIE) study, have found that patients were more likely to adhere to clozapine therapy than to other antipsychotics.[2, 15] In the CATIE study, 44% of subjects taking clozapine continued the medication for 18 months, compared to 29% of individuals on olanzapine, 14% on risperidone, and 7% on quetiapine. Median time until discontinuation of clozapine was 10.5 months, significantly longer than for quetiapine (2.8 months) and olanzapine (2.7 months).[2] Because patients who experience clozapine‐related medical complications are likely to present first to the primary care or general hospital setting, internists must be aware of potential iatrogenic effects, and of their implications for psychiatric and medical care. Using case examples, we will examine both common and serious complications associated with clozapine, and discuss recommendations for management, including indications for clozapine discontinuation.
NEUROLOGICAL
Case Vignette 1
Mr. A is a 29‐year‐old man with asthma and schizophrenia who experienced a generalized tonic‐clonic seizure during treatment at a psychiatric facility. The patient started clozapine therapy 5 weeks prior, with gradual titration to 425 mg daily. Mr. A's previous medication trials included olanzapine and chlorpromazine, which rendered little improvement to his chronic auditory hallucinations. Clozapine was temporarily withheld during further neurologic workup, in which both electroencephalogram (EEG) and brain magnetic resonance imaging were unremarkable. After 60 hours, clozapine titration was reinitiated, and valproic acid was started for mood stabilization and seizure prophylaxis. Mr. A was discharged 6 weeks later on clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime, and extended‐release divalproate, 2500 mg at bedtime. The patient suffered no further seizure activity throughout hospitalization and for at least 1 year postdischarge.
Seizures complicate clozapine use in up to 5% of cases, with a dose‐dependent risk pattern.[16] Seizures are most commonly associated with serum clozapine levels above 500 g/L), but have also been reported with lower levels of clozapine and its metabolite norclozapine.[17] Though nonspecific EEG changes (ie, focal or generalized spikes, spike‐wave and polyspike discharges) have been associated with clozapine administration, they do not reliably predict seizure tendency.[17] Prophylaxis with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is not recommended, though AED treatment may be undertaken for patients who experience a seizure while on clozapine. When seizures occur in the context of elevated serum levels, reducing clozapine to the lowest effective dose is preferred over initiating an AED. Although this reduces the potential for exposure to anticonvulsant‐associated adverse effects, it may also introduce the risk of relapsed psychotic symptoms, and therefore requires close monitoring by a psychiatrist. For those who opt to initiate AED therapy, we recommend consideration of each medication's therapeutic and side‐effect profiles based on the patient's medical history and active symptoms. For example, in the case of Mr. A, valproate was used to target concomitant mood symptoms; likewise, patients who experience troublesome weight gain, as well as seizures, may benefit from topiramate. The occurrence of seizures does not preclude continuation of clozapine therapy, in conjunction with an AED[18] and after consideration of potential risks and benefits of use. Clozapine is not contraindicated in patients with well‐controlled epilepsy.[19]
Sedation, the most common neurologic side effect of clozapine, is also dose dependent and often abates during titration.[20] Though clozapine may induce extrapyramidal symptoms, including rigidity, tremor, and dystonia, the risk is considerably lower with clozapine than other antipsychotics, owing to a lesser affinity for D2 receptors. Associated parkinsonism should prompt consideration of dose reduction, in discussion with a psychiatrist, with concurrent monitoring of serum clozapine levels and close follow‐up for emergence of psychotic symptoms. If dose reduction is ineffective, not indicated, or not preferred by the patient, the addition of an anticholinergic medication may be considered (eg, diphenhydramine 2550 mg, benztropine 12 mg). Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, although rare, is life‐threatening and warrants immediate discontinuation of clozapine, though successful rechallenge after has been reported in case reports.[21]
CARDIAC
Case Vignette 2
Mr. B is a 34‐year‐old man with sinus tachycardia, a benign adrenal tumor, and chronic paranoid schizophrenia that had been poorly responsive to numerous antipsychotic trials. During a psychiatric hospitalization for paranoid delusions with aggressive threats toward family, Mr. B was started on clozapine and titrated to 250 mg daily. On day 16 of clozapine therapy, the patient began to experience cough, and several days later, diffuse rhonchi were noted on examination. Complete blood count revealed WBC 20.3 * 103/L, with 37% eosinophils and absolute eosinophil count of 7.51 (increased from 12%/1.90 the week before), and an electrocardiogram showed sinus tachycardia with ST‐segment changes. Mr. B was transferred to the general medical hospital for workup of presumed myocarditis.
Approximately one‐quarter of patients who take clozapine experience sinus tachycardia, which may be related to clozapine's anticholinergic effects causing rebound noradrenergic elevations[22]; persistent or problematic tachycardia may be treated using a cardio‐selective ‐blocker. Clozapine has also been linked to significant increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in 4% of patients (monitoring data); the risk of hypertension increases with the duration of clozapine treatment, and appears to be independent of the patient's weight.[23] Orthostatic hypotension has been reported in 9% of patients on clozapine therapy, though effects can be mitigated with gradual titration, adequate hydration, compression stockings, and patient education. Sinus tachycardia, hypertension, and orthostatic hypotension are not absolute indications to discontinue clozapine; rather, we advocate for treating these side effects while continuing clozapine treatment.[24]
Myocarditis represents the most serious cardiac side effect of clozapine.[25, 26] Although the absolute risk appears to be lower than 0.1%,[24] Kilian et al. calculated a 1000‐to‐2000fold increase in relative risk of myocarditis among patients who take clozapine, compared to the general population.[26] Most cases occur within the first month of treatment, with median time to onset of 15 days. This time course is consistent with an acute immunoglobulin Emediated hypersensitivity (type 1) reaction, and eosinophilic infiltrates have been found on autopsy, consistent with an acute drug reaction.[20]
Because of this early onset, the physician should maintain a particularly high index of suspicion in the first months of treatment, rigorously questioning patients and families about signs and symptoms of cardiac disease. If patients on clozapine present with flu‐like symptoms, fever, myalgia, dizziness, chest pain, dyspnea, tachycardia, palpitations, or other signs or symptoms of heart failure, evaluation for myocarditis should be undertaken.[25] Several centers have utilized cardiac enzymes (e.g., troponin I, troponin T, creatine kinase‐myocardial band) as a universal screen for myocarditis, though this is not a universal practice.[24] Both tachycardia and flu‐like symptoms may be associated with clozapine, particularly during the titration period, and these are normally benign symptoms requiring no intervention. If the diagnosis of myocarditis is made, however, clozapine should be stopped immediately. Myocarditis is often considered to be a contraindication to restarting clozapine, though cases have been reported of successful clozapine rechallenge in patients who had previously experienced myocarditis.[21]
Recommendations for clozapine‐associated electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring have not been standardized. Based on common clinical practice and the time course of serious cardiac complications, we recommend baseline ECG prior to the start of clozapine, with follow‐up ECG 2 to 4 weeks after clozapine initiation, and every 6 months thereafter.
GASTROINTESTINAL
Case Vignette 3
Mr. C is a 61‐year‐old man with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and a history of multiple‐state hospital admissions. He had been maintained on clozapine for 15 years, allowing him to live independently and avoid psychiatric hospitalization. Mr. C was admitted to the general medical hospital with nausea, vomiting, and an inability to tolerate oral intake. He was found to have a high‐grade small‐bowel obstruction, and all oral medications were initially discontinued. After successful management of his acute gastrointestinal presentation and discussion of potential risks and benefits of various treatment options, clozapine was reinitiated along with bulk laxative and stool softening agents.
Affecting 14% to 60% of individuals who are prescribed clozapine, constipation represents the most common associated gastrointestinal complaint.[27] For most patients, this condition is uncomfortable but nonlethal, though it has been implicated in several deaths by aspiration pneumonia and small‐bowel perforation.[28, 29] Providers must screen regularly for constipation and treat aggressively with stimulant laxatives and stool softeners,[18] while reviewing medication lists and, when possible, streamlining extraneous anticholinergic contributors. Clozapine‐prescribed individuals also frequently suffer from gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD), for which behavioral interventions (eg, smoking cessation or remaining upright for 3 hours after meals) should be considered in addition to pharmacologic treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Clozapine therapy may be continued while constipation and GERD are managed medically.
Potentially fatal gastrointestinal hypomotility and small‐bowel obstruction are rare but well‐described complications that occur in up to 0.3% of patients who take clozapine.[27] This effect appears to be dose dependent, and higher blood levels are associated with greater severity of constipation and risk for serious hypomotility.[27] Clozapine should be withheld during treatment for such serious adverse events as ileus or small‐bowel perforation; however, once these conditions have stabilized, clozapine therapy may be reconsidered based on an analysis of potential benefits and risks. If clozapine is withheld, the internist must monitor for acute worsening of mental status, inattention, and disorientation, as clozapine withdrawal‐related delirium has been reported.[30] Ultimately, aggressive treatment of constipation in conjunction with continued clozapine therapy is the recommended course of action.[28]
Given the increased risk of ileus in the postoperative period, it is particularly important for physicians to inquire about preoperative bowel habits and assess for any existing constipation. Careful monitoring of postoperative bowel motility, along with early and aggressive management of constipation, is recommended. Concurrent administration of other constipating agents (eg, opiates, anticholinergics) should be limited to the lowest effective dose.[27] Although transaminitis, hepatitis, and pancreatitis have all been associated with clozapine in case reports, these are rare,[31] and the approach to management should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.
HEMATOLOGIC
Case Vignette 4
Ms. D is a 38‐year‐old woman with a schizoaffective disorder who was started on clozapine after 3 other agents had failed to control her psychotic symptoms and alleviate chronic suicidal thoughts. Baseline CBC revealed serum white blood cell count (WBC) of 7800/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 4700/mm3. In Ms. D's third week of clozapine use, WBC dropped to 4400/mm3 and ANC to 2200/mm3. Repeat lab draw confirmed this, prompting the treatment team to initiate twice‐weekly CBC monitoring. Ms. D's counts continued to fall, and 10 days after the initial drop, WBC was calculated at 1400/mm3 and ANC at 790/mm3. Clozapine was discontinued, and though the patient was asymptomatic, broad‐spectrum antibiotics were initiated. She received daily CBC monitoring until WBC >3000/mm3 and ANC >1500/mm3. An alternate psychotropic medication was initiated several weeks thereafter.
Neutropenia (white blood cell count <3000/mm3) is a common complication that affects approximately 3% of patients who take clozapine.[32] This may be mediated by clozapine's selective impact on the precursors of polymorphonuclear leukocytes, though the mechanism remains unknown.[33] Although neutropenia is not an absolute contraindication for clozapine therapy, guidelines recommend cessation of clozapine when the ANC drops below 1000/mm3.[34] A meta‐analysis of 112 patients who were rechallenged following neutropenia found that 69% tolerated a rechallenge without development of a subsequent dyscrasia.[21]
In the case of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia, several case reports support the continued use of clozapine during cancer treatment[35]; this requires a written request to the pharmaceutical company that manufactures clozapine and documentation of the expected time course and contribution of chemotherapy to neutropenia.[36] Clozapine's association with neutropenia warrants close monitoring in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other causes of immune compromise. Reports of clozapine continuation in HIV‐positive individuals underscore the importance of close collaboration between infectious disease and psychiatry, with specific focus on potential interactions between clozapine and antiretroviral agents and close monitoring of viral load and ANC.[37]
The most feared complication of clozapine remains agranulocytosis, defined as ANC<500/mm3,[33] which occurs in up to 1% of monitored patients. In 1975, clozapine was banned worldwide after 8 fatal cases of agranulocytosis were reported in Finland.[38] The drug was reintroduced for treatment‐resistant schizophrenia with strict monitoring parameters, which has sharply reduced the death rate. One study found 12 actual deaths between 1990 and 1994, compared to the 149 predicted deaths without monitoring.[39]
The risk of agranulocytosis appears to be higher in older adults and in patients with a lower baseline WBC count. Although there are reports of delayed agranulocytosis occurring in patients after up to 19 years of treatment,[40] the incidence of leukopenia is greatest in the first year. Given this high‐risk period, mandatory monitoring is as follows: weekly WBC and neutrophil counts for the first 26 weeks, biweekly counts for the second 26 weeks, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Of note, many of the later cases of agranulocytosis appear to be related to medication coadministration, particularly with valproic acid, though no definitive link has been established.[40]
Treatment of clozapine‐induced agranulocytosis consists of immediate clozapine cessation, and consideration of initiation of prophylactic broad‐spectrum antibiotics and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (such as filgrastim) until the granulocyte count normalizes.[41, 42] Although few case reports describe successful clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of agranulocytosis, the data are sparse, and current practice is to permanently discontinue clozapine if ANC falls below 1000/mm3.[21, 41]
ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS (METABOLIC, RENAL, URINARY)
Moderate to marked weight gain occurs in over 50% of patients treated with clozapine, with average gains of nearly 10% body weight.[43] In a 10‐year follow‐up study of patients treated with clozapine, Henderson et al. reported an average weight gain of 13 kg, with 34% percent of studied patients developing diabetes mellitus. Metabolic side effects of second‐generation antipsychotics, including clozapine, are a well‐documented and troubling phenomenon.[44] Limited evidence supports use of metformin, alongside behavioral therapy, for concerns related to glucose dysregulation.[45] Some patients have also experienced weight loss with adjunctive topiramate use, particularly if they have also suffered seizures.[46]
Urinary incontinence and nocturnal enuresis are both associated with clozapine, but are likely under‐reported because of patient and provider embarrassment; providers also may not think to ask about these specific symptoms. First‐line treatment for nocturnal enuresis is to limit fluids in the evening. Desmopressin has a controversial role in treating nocturnal enuresis owing to its risk of hyponatremia; appropriate monitoring should be implemented if this agent is used.[18]
Clozapine has been associated with acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), although this is thought to be a relatively rare side effect. Drug‐induced AIN typically appears soon after initiation and presents with the clinical triad of rash, fever, and eosinophilia. Given that weekly CBC is mandatory in the initiation phase, eosinophilia is easily detectible and may serve as a marker for potential AIN.[47]
Sialorrhea, particularly during sleep, is a bothersome condition affecting up to one‐third of patients who take clozapine.[48] Although clozapine is strongly anticholinergic, its agonist activity at the M4 muscarinic receptor and antagonism of the alpha‐2 adrenergic receptor are postulated as the mechanisms underlying hypersalivation. Sialorrhea is frequently seen early in treatment and does not appear to be dose dependent.[48] Excessive salivation is typically managed with behavioral interventions (eg, utilizing towels or other absorbent materials on top of bedding). If hypersalivation occurs during the day, chewing sugar‐free gum may increase the rate of swallowing and make symptoms less bothersome. If this does not provide adequate relief, practitioners may consider use of atropine 1% solution administered directly to the oral cavity.[49]
DRUG‐DRUG INTERACTIONS
For hospitalists, who must frequently alter existing medications or add new ones, awareness of potential drug‐drug interactions is crucial. Clozapine is metabolized by the cytochrome p450 system, with predominant metabolism through the isoenzymes 1A2, 3A4, and 2D6.[50] Common medications that induce clozapine metabolism (thereby decreasing clozapine levels) include phenytoin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and corticosteroids. Conversely, stopping these medications after long‐term therapy will raise clozapine levels. Substances that inhibit clozapine metabolism (thereby increasing clozapine levels) include ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, clarithromycin, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, protease inhibitors, verapamil, and grapefruit juice. We recommend caution when concurrently administering other agents that increase risk for agranulocytosis, including carbamazepine, trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole, sulfasalazine, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Cigarette smoking decreases clozapine blood levels by induction of CYP1A2. Patients require a 10% to 30% reduction to clozapine dose during periods of smoking cessation, including when smoking is stopped during inpatient hospitalization.[51] Nicotine replacement therapy does not induce CYP1A2 and therefore does not have a compensatory effect on clozapine levels. On discharge or resumption of smoking, patients may require an increase of their dose of clozapine to maintain adequate antipsychotic effect.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Medical complications are cited as the cause in 20% of clozapine discontinuations; most commonly, these include seizures, severe constipation, somnolence, and neutropenia. Given the high risk of psychiatric morbidity posed by discontinuation, we recommend managing mild‐moderate symptoms and side effects while continuing the drug, when possible (Table 1). We encourage hospitalists to confer with the patient's psychiatrist or the inpatient psychiatry consultation service when making changes to clozapine therapy. Specific recommendations are as follows:
- We advocate withholding clozapine administration pending medical optimization for several conditions, including: small‐bowel obstruction, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, venous thromboembolism, diabetic ketoacidosis, or hyperosmolar coma.
- Clinical scenarios requiring acute discontinuation of clozapine include agranulocytosis and myocarditis. Successful rechallenge with clozapine has been described after both conditions; at the same time, given the high morbidity and mortality of myocarditis and agranulocytosis, re‐initiation of clozapine requires an extensive risk‐benefit discussion with the patient and family, informed consent, and, in the case of agranulocytosis, approval from the national clozapine registry (Table 2).
- Although adjunctive therapy with filgrastim was initially thought to permit a clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of agranulocytosis, case reports on this strategy have been equivocal, and further research is necessary to determine the most effective strategy for management.
Clinical Lab/Study | Frequency of Monitoring | |
---|---|---|
Cardiac | Electrocardiogram | Baseline, 24 weeks after initiation, every 6 months thereafter |
Cardiac enzymes (eg, troponin I) echocardiogram | No standard guidelines, unless clinically indicated | |
Hematologic | Complete blood count with differential | Baseline, then weekly 26 weeks, then every 2 weeks 26 weeks, then every 4 weeks thereafter |
Metabolic | Body mass index; circumference of waist | Baseline, then every 3 to 6 months |
Fasting glucose | Baseline, then every 6 months | |
Fasting lipid panel | Baseline, then yearly | |
Neurologic | Electroencephalogram | No standard guidelines, unless clinically indicated |
Vital signs | Heart rate, blood pressure, temperature | Baseline and at each follow‐up visit |
Requires Acute Clozapine Discontinuation* | Clozapine Interruption During Management | Does Not Typically Require Clozapine Discontinuation |
---|---|---|
| ||
Agranulocytosis (ANC<1.0 109/mm3) | Diabetic complications (eg, ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar coma) | Constipation |
Cardiomyopathy (severe) | Gastrointestinal obstruction, ileus | Diabetes mellitus |
Myocarditis | Neuroleptic malignant syndrome | Gastroesophageal Reflux |
Venous thromboembolism | Hyperlipidemia | |
Hypertension | ||
Orthostatic hypotension | ||
Sedation | ||
Seizures | ||
Sialorrhea | ||
Sinus tachycardia | ||
Urinary changes (eg, enuresis, incontinence) | ||
Weight gain |
CONCLUSION
Clozapine has been a very successful treatment for patients with schizophrenia who have failed other antipsychotic therapies. However, fears of potential side effects and frequent monitoring have limited its use and led to unnecessary discontinuation. To mitigate risk for serious complications, we hope to increase hospitalists' awareness of prevention, monitoring, and treatment of side effects, and to promote comfort with circumstances that warrant continuation or discontinuation of clozapine (Table 3). The hospitalist plays a crucial role in managing these complications as well as conveying information and recommendations to primary care providers; as such, their familiarity with the medication is essential for proper management of individuals who take clozapine.
Take‐Home Points |
---|
1. Clozapine is the gold standard for treatment‐resistant schizophrenia; however, its use is limited by side effects, many of which can be successfully treated by internists. |
2. There are few indications for discontinuing clozapine (myocarditis, small‐bowel obstruction, agranulocytosis). The psychiatry service should be consulted in the event that clozapine is discontinued. |
3. Seizures are not an indication for discontinuing clozapine; instead, we recommend adding an antiepileptic drug. |
4. All second‐generation antipsychotics are associated with diabetes mellitus and significant weight gain. Clozapine is more highly associated with metabolic side effects than many other medications in this class. |
5. Sedation, sialorrhea, and constipation are common and can be managed pharmacologically and with behavioral interventions. |
Disclosure: Nothing to report.
Clozapine is a second‐generation antipsychotic (SGA) medication that was developed in 1959, introduced to Europe in 1971, and withdrawn from the market in 1975 due to associated concerns for potentially fatal agranulocytosis. In 1989, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved use of clozapine for the management of treatment‐resistant schizophrenia, under strict parameters for complete blood count (CBC) monitoring. Clozapine has since gained an additional FDA indication for reducing suicidal behavior in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder,[1, 2, 3] and displayed superiority to both first generation antipsychotics and other SGA agents in reducing symptom burden.[2, 4, 5]
Clozapine's clinical benefits include lowering mortality in schizophrenia,[6] reducing deaths from ischemic heart disease,[7] curtailing substance use in individuals with psychotic disorders,[8] increasing rates of independent living and meaningful occupational activity, and reducing psychiatric hospitalizations and need for involuntary treatment.[9] Because schizophrenia, itself, is associated with a 15‐ to 20‐year decrease in average lifespan,[10] these benefits of clozapine are particularly salient. Yet the mechanism by which clozapine mitigates otherwise‐refractory psychotic symptoms is a conundrum. Structurally a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine, clozapine has relatively little effect on the dopamine D2 receptor, which has classically been thought to mediate the treatment effect of antipsychotics.[11, 12]
The unique nature of clozapine extends to its adverse effect profile. A significant percentage of patients who discontinue clozapine (17%35.4%) cite medical complications, the most common being seizures, constipation, sedation, and neutropenia.[13, 14] Yet several studies, including the landmark Clinical Antipsychotic Trials for Interventions Effectiveness (CATIE) study, have found that patients were more likely to adhere to clozapine therapy than to other antipsychotics.[2, 15] In the CATIE study, 44% of subjects taking clozapine continued the medication for 18 months, compared to 29% of individuals on olanzapine, 14% on risperidone, and 7% on quetiapine. Median time until discontinuation of clozapine was 10.5 months, significantly longer than for quetiapine (2.8 months) and olanzapine (2.7 months).[2] Because patients who experience clozapine‐related medical complications are likely to present first to the primary care or general hospital setting, internists must be aware of potential iatrogenic effects, and of their implications for psychiatric and medical care. Using case examples, we will examine both common and serious complications associated with clozapine, and discuss recommendations for management, including indications for clozapine discontinuation.
NEUROLOGICAL
Case Vignette 1
Mr. A is a 29‐year‐old man with asthma and schizophrenia who experienced a generalized tonic‐clonic seizure during treatment at a psychiatric facility. The patient started clozapine therapy 5 weeks prior, with gradual titration to 425 mg daily. Mr. A's previous medication trials included olanzapine and chlorpromazine, which rendered little improvement to his chronic auditory hallucinations. Clozapine was temporarily withheld during further neurologic workup, in which both electroencephalogram (EEG) and brain magnetic resonance imaging were unremarkable. After 60 hours, clozapine titration was reinitiated, and valproic acid was started for mood stabilization and seizure prophylaxis. Mr. A was discharged 6 weeks later on clozapine, 600 mg at bedtime, and extended‐release divalproate, 2500 mg at bedtime. The patient suffered no further seizure activity throughout hospitalization and for at least 1 year postdischarge.
Seizures complicate clozapine use in up to 5% of cases, with a dose‐dependent risk pattern.[16] Seizures are most commonly associated with serum clozapine levels above 500 g/L), but have also been reported with lower levels of clozapine and its metabolite norclozapine.[17] Though nonspecific EEG changes (ie, focal or generalized spikes, spike‐wave and polyspike discharges) have been associated with clozapine administration, they do not reliably predict seizure tendency.[17] Prophylaxis with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is not recommended, though AED treatment may be undertaken for patients who experience a seizure while on clozapine. When seizures occur in the context of elevated serum levels, reducing clozapine to the lowest effective dose is preferred over initiating an AED. Although this reduces the potential for exposure to anticonvulsant‐associated adverse effects, it may also introduce the risk of relapsed psychotic symptoms, and therefore requires close monitoring by a psychiatrist. For those who opt to initiate AED therapy, we recommend consideration of each medication's therapeutic and side‐effect profiles based on the patient's medical history and active symptoms. For example, in the case of Mr. A, valproate was used to target concomitant mood symptoms; likewise, patients who experience troublesome weight gain, as well as seizures, may benefit from topiramate. The occurrence of seizures does not preclude continuation of clozapine therapy, in conjunction with an AED[18] and after consideration of potential risks and benefits of use. Clozapine is not contraindicated in patients with well‐controlled epilepsy.[19]
Sedation, the most common neurologic side effect of clozapine, is also dose dependent and often abates during titration.[20] Though clozapine may induce extrapyramidal symptoms, including rigidity, tremor, and dystonia, the risk is considerably lower with clozapine than other antipsychotics, owing to a lesser affinity for D2 receptors. Associated parkinsonism should prompt consideration of dose reduction, in discussion with a psychiatrist, with concurrent monitoring of serum clozapine levels and close follow‐up for emergence of psychotic symptoms. If dose reduction is ineffective, not indicated, or not preferred by the patient, the addition of an anticholinergic medication may be considered (eg, diphenhydramine 2550 mg, benztropine 12 mg). Neuroleptic malignant syndrome, although rare, is life‐threatening and warrants immediate discontinuation of clozapine, though successful rechallenge after has been reported in case reports.[21]
CARDIAC
Case Vignette 2
Mr. B is a 34‐year‐old man with sinus tachycardia, a benign adrenal tumor, and chronic paranoid schizophrenia that had been poorly responsive to numerous antipsychotic trials. During a psychiatric hospitalization for paranoid delusions with aggressive threats toward family, Mr. B was started on clozapine and titrated to 250 mg daily. On day 16 of clozapine therapy, the patient began to experience cough, and several days later, diffuse rhonchi were noted on examination. Complete blood count revealed WBC 20.3 * 103/L, with 37% eosinophils and absolute eosinophil count of 7.51 (increased from 12%/1.90 the week before), and an electrocardiogram showed sinus tachycardia with ST‐segment changes. Mr. B was transferred to the general medical hospital for workup of presumed myocarditis.
Approximately one‐quarter of patients who take clozapine experience sinus tachycardia, which may be related to clozapine's anticholinergic effects causing rebound noradrenergic elevations[22]; persistent or problematic tachycardia may be treated using a cardio‐selective ‐blocker. Clozapine has also been linked to significant increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in 4% of patients (monitoring data); the risk of hypertension increases with the duration of clozapine treatment, and appears to be independent of the patient's weight.[23] Orthostatic hypotension has been reported in 9% of patients on clozapine therapy, though effects can be mitigated with gradual titration, adequate hydration, compression stockings, and patient education. Sinus tachycardia, hypertension, and orthostatic hypotension are not absolute indications to discontinue clozapine; rather, we advocate for treating these side effects while continuing clozapine treatment.[24]
Myocarditis represents the most serious cardiac side effect of clozapine.[25, 26] Although the absolute risk appears to be lower than 0.1%,[24] Kilian et al. calculated a 1000‐to‐2000fold increase in relative risk of myocarditis among patients who take clozapine, compared to the general population.[26] Most cases occur within the first month of treatment, with median time to onset of 15 days. This time course is consistent with an acute immunoglobulin Emediated hypersensitivity (type 1) reaction, and eosinophilic infiltrates have been found on autopsy, consistent with an acute drug reaction.[20]
Because of this early onset, the physician should maintain a particularly high index of suspicion in the first months of treatment, rigorously questioning patients and families about signs and symptoms of cardiac disease. If patients on clozapine present with flu‐like symptoms, fever, myalgia, dizziness, chest pain, dyspnea, tachycardia, palpitations, or other signs or symptoms of heart failure, evaluation for myocarditis should be undertaken.[25] Several centers have utilized cardiac enzymes (e.g., troponin I, troponin T, creatine kinase‐myocardial band) as a universal screen for myocarditis, though this is not a universal practice.[24] Both tachycardia and flu‐like symptoms may be associated with clozapine, particularly during the titration period, and these are normally benign symptoms requiring no intervention. If the diagnosis of myocarditis is made, however, clozapine should be stopped immediately. Myocarditis is often considered to be a contraindication to restarting clozapine, though cases have been reported of successful clozapine rechallenge in patients who had previously experienced myocarditis.[21]
Recommendations for clozapine‐associated electrocardiography (ECG) monitoring have not been standardized. Based on common clinical practice and the time course of serious cardiac complications, we recommend baseline ECG prior to the start of clozapine, with follow‐up ECG 2 to 4 weeks after clozapine initiation, and every 6 months thereafter.
GASTROINTESTINAL
Case Vignette 3
Mr. C is a 61‐year‐old man with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and a history of multiple‐state hospital admissions. He had been maintained on clozapine for 15 years, allowing him to live independently and avoid psychiatric hospitalization. Mr. C was admitted to the general medical hospital with nausea, vomiting, and an inability to tolerate oral intake. He was found to have a high‐grade small‐bowel obstruction, and all oral medications were initially discontinued. After successful management of his acute gastrointestinal presentation and discussion of potential risks and benefits of various treatment options, clozapine was reinitiated along with bulk laxative and stool softening agents.
Affecting 14% to 60% of individuals who are prescribed clozapine, constipation represents the most common associated gastrointestinal complaint.[27] For most patients, this condition is uncomfortable but nonlethal, though it has been implicated in several deaths by aspiration pneumonia and small‐bowel perforation.[28, 29] Providers must screen regularly for constipation and treat aggressively with stimulant laxatives and stool softeners,[18] while reviewing medication lists and, when possible, streamlining extraneous anticholinergic contributors. Clozapine‐prescribed individuals also frequently suffer from gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD), for which behavioral interventions (eg, smoking cessation or remaining upright for 3 hours after meals) should be considered in addition to pharmacologic treatment with proton pump inhibitors. Clozapine therapy may be continued while constipation and GERD are managed medically.
Potentially fatal gastrointestinal hypomotility and small‐bowel obstruction are rare but well‐described complications that occur in up to 0.3% of patients who take clozapine.[27] This effect appears to be dose dependent, and higher blood levels are associated with greater severity of constipation and risk for serious hypomotility.[27] Clozapine should be withheld during treatment for such serious adverse events as ileus or small‐bowel perforation; however, once these conditions have stabilized, clozapine therapy may be reconsidered based on an analysis of potential benefits and risks. If clozapine is withheld, the internist must monitor for acute worsening of mental status, inattention, and disorientation, as clozapine withdrawal‐related delirium has been reported.[30] Ultimately, aggressive treatment of constipation in conjunction with continued clozapine therapy is the recommended course of action.[28]
Given the increased risk of ileus in the postoperative period, it is particularly important for physicians to inquire about preoperative bowel habits and assess for any existing constipation. Careful monitoring of postoperative bowel motility, along with early and aggressive management of constipation, is recommended. Concurrent administration of other constipating agents (eg, opiates, anticholinergics) should be limited to the lowest effective dose.[27] Although transaminitis, hepatitis, and pancreatitis have all been associated with clozapine in case reports, these are rare,[31] and the approach to management should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis.
HEMATOLOGIC
Case Vignette 4
Ms. D is a 38‐year‐old woman with a schizoaffective disorder who was started on clozapine after 3 other agents had failed to control her psychotic symptoms and alleviate chronic suicidal thoughts. Baseline CBC revealed serum white blood cell count (WBC) of 7800/mm3 and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 4700/mm3. In Ms. D's third week of clozapine use, WBC dropped to 4400/mm3 and ANC to 2200/mm3. Repeat lab draw confirmed this, prompting the treatment team to initiate twice‐weekly CBC monitoring. Ms. D's counts continued to fall, and 10 days after the initial drop, WBC was calculated at 1400/mm3 and ANC at 790/mm3. Clozapine was discontinued, and though the patient was asymptomatic, broad‐spectrum antibiotics were initiated. She received daily CBC monitoring until WBC >3000/mm3 and ANC >1500/mm3. An alternate psychotropic medication was initiated several weeks thereafter.
Neutropenia (white blood cell count <3000/mm3) is a common complication that affects approximately 3% of patients who take clozapine.[32] This may be mediated by clozapine's selective impact on the precursors of polymorphonuclear leukocytes, though the mechanism remains unknown.[33] Although neutropenia is not an absolute contraindication for clozapine therapy, guidelines recommend cessation of clozapine when the ANC drops below 1000/mm3.[34] A meta‐analysis of 112 patients who were rechallenged following neutropenia found that 69% tolerated a rechallenge without development of a subsequent dyscrasia.[21]
In the case of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia, several case reports support the continued use of clozapine during cancer treatment[35]; this requires a written request to the pharmaceutical company that manufactures clozapine and documentation of the expected time course and contribution of chemotherapy to neutropenia.[36] Clozapine's association with neutropenia warrants close monitoring in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other causes of immune compromise. Reports of clozapine continuation in HIV‐positive individuals underscore the importance of close collaboration between infectious disease and psychiatry, with specific focus on potential interactions between clozapine and antiretroviral agents and close monitoring of viral load and ANC.[37]
The most feared complication of clozapine remains agranulocytosis, defined as ANC<500/mm3,[33] which occurs in up to 1% of monitored patients. In 1975, clozapine was banned worldwide after 8 fatal cases of agranulocytosis were reported in Finland.[38] The drug was reintroduced for treatment‐resistant schizophrenia with strict monitoring parameters, which has sharply reduced the death rate. One study found 12 actual deaths between 1990 and 1994, compared to the 149 predicted deaths without monitoring.[39]
The risk of agranulocytosis appears to be higher in older adults and in patients with a lower baseline WBC count. Although there are reports of delayed agranulocytosis occurring in patients after up to 19 years of treatment,[40] the incidence of leukopenia is greatest in the first year. Given this high‐risk period, mandatory monitoring is as follows: weekly WBC and neutrophil counts for the first 26 weeks, biweekly counts for the second 26 weeks, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Of note, many of the later cases of agranulocytosis appear to be related to medication coadministration, particularly with valproic acid, though no definitive link has been established.[40]
Treatment of clozapine‐induced agranulocytosis consists of immediate clozapine cessation, and consideration of initiation of prophylactic broad‐spectrum antibiotics and granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (such as filgrastim) until the granulocyte count normalizes.[41, 42] Although few case reports describe successful clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of agranulocytosis, the data are sparse, and current practice is to permanently discontinue clozapine if ANC falls below 1000/mm3.[21, 41]
ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS (METABOLIC, RENAL, URINARY)
Moderate to marked weight gain occurs in over 50% of patients treated with clozapine, with average gains of nearly 10% body weight.[43] In a 10‐year follow‐up study of patients treated with clozapine, Henderson et al. reported an average weight gain of 13 kg, with 34% percent of studied patients developing diabetes mellitus. Metabolic side effects of second‐generation antipsychotics, including clozapine, are a well‐documented and troubling phenomenon.[44] Limited evidence supports use of metformin, alongside behavioral therapy, for concerns related to glucose dysregulation.[45] Some patients have also experienced weight loss with adjunctive topiramate use, particularly if they have also suffered seizures.[46]
Urinary incontinence and nocturnal enuresis are both associated with clozapine, but are likely under‐reported because of patient and provider embarrassment; providers also may not think to ask about these specific symptoms. First‐line treatment for nocturnal enuresis is to limit fluids in the evening. Desmopressin has a controversial role in treating nocturnal enuresis owing to its risk of hyponatremia; appropriate monitoring should be implemented if this agent is used.[18]
Clozapine has been associated with acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), although this is thought to be a relatively rare side effect. Drug‐induced AIN typically appears soon after initiation and presents with the clinical triad of rash, fever, and eosinophilia. Given that weekly CBC is mandatory in the initiation phase, eosinophilia is easily detectible and may serve as a marker for potential AIN.[47]
Sialorrhea, particularly during sleep, is a bothersome condition affecting up to one‐third of patients who take clozapine.[48] Although clozapine is strongly anticholinergic, its agonist activity at the M4 muscarinic receptor and antagonism of the alpha‐2 adrenergic receptor are postulated as the mechanisms underlying hypersalivation. Sialorrhea is frequently seen early in treatment and does not appear to be dose dependent.[48] Excessive salivation is typically managed with behavioral interventions (eg, utilizing towels or other absorbent materials on top of bedding). If hypersalivation occurs during the day, chewing sugar‐free gum may increase the rate of swallowing and make symptoms less bothersome. If this does not provide adequate relief, practitioners may consider use of atropine 1% solution administered directly to the oral cavity.[49]
DRUG‐DRUG INTERACTIONS
For hospitalists, who must frequently alter existing medications or add new ones, awareness of potential drug‐drug interactions is crucial. Clozapine is metabolized by the cytochrome p450 system, with predominant metabolism through the isoenzymes 1A2, 3A4, and 2D6.[50] Common medications that induce clozapine metabolism (thereby decreasing clozapine levels) include phenytoin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and corticosteroids. Conversely, stopping these medications after long‐term therapy will raise clozapine levels. Substances that inhibit clozapine metabolism (thereby increasing clozapine levels) include ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, clarithromycin, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, protease inhibitors, verapamil, and grapefruit juice. We recommend caution when concurrently administering other agents that increase risk for agranulocytosis, including carbamazepine, trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole, sulfasalazine, and tricyclic antidepressants.
Cigarette smoking decreases clozapine blood levels by induction of CYP1A2. Patients require a 10% to 30% reduction to clozapine dose during periods of smoking cessation, including when smoking is stopped during inpatient hospitalization.[51] Nicotine replacement therapy does not induce CYP1A2 and therefore does not have a compensatory effect on clozapine levels. On discharge or resumption of smoking, patients may require an increase of their dose of clozapine to maintain adequate antipsychotic effect.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Medical complications are cited as the cause in 20% of clozapine discontinuations; most commonly, these include seizures, severe constipation, somnolence, and neutropenia. Given the high risk of psychiatric morbidity posed by discontinuation, we recommend managing mild‐moderate symptoms and side effects while continuing the drug, when possible (Table 1). We encourage hospitalists to confer with the patient's psychiatrist or the inpatient psychiatry consultation service when making changes to clozapine therapy. Specific recommendations are as follows:
- We advocate withholding clozapine administration pending medical optimization for several conditions, including: small‐bowel obstruction, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, venous thromboembolism, diabetic ketoacidosis, or hyperosmolar coma.
- Clinical scenarios requiring acute discontinuation of clozapine include agranulocytosis and myocarditis. Successful rechallenge with clozapine has been described after both conditions; at the same time, given the high morbidity and mortality of myocarditis and agranulocytosis, re‐initiation of clozapine requires an extensive risk‐benefit discussion with the patient and family, informed consent, and, in the case of agranulocytosis, approval from the national clozapine registry (Table 2).
- Although adjunctive therapy with filgrastim was initially thought to permit a clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of agranulocytosis, case reports on this strategy have been equivocal, and further research is necessary to determine the most effective strategy for management.
Clinical Lab/Study | Frequency of Monitoring | |
---|---|---|
Cardiac | Electrocardiogram | Baseline, 24 weeks after initiation, every 6 months thereafter |
Cardiac enzymes (eg, troponin I) echocardiogram | No standard guidelines, unless clinically indicated | |
Hematologic | Complete blood count with differential | Baseline, then weekly 26 weeks, then every 2 weeks 26 weeks, then every 4 weeks thereafter |
Metabolic | Body mass index; circumference of waist | Baseline, then every 3 to 6 months |
Fasting glucose | Baseline, then every 6 months | |
Fasting lipid panel | Baseline, then yearly | |
Neurologic | Electroencephalogram | No standard guidelines, unless clinically indicated |
Vital signs | Heart rate, blood pressure, temperature | Baseline and at each follow‐up visit |
Requires Acute Clozapine Discontinuation* | Clozapine Interruption During Management | Does Not Typically Require Clozapine Discontinuation |
---|---|---|
| ||
Agranulocytosis (ANC<1.0 109/mm3) | Diabetic complications (eg, ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar coma) | Constipation |
Cardiomyopathy (severe) | Gastrointestinal obstruction, ileus | Diabetes mellitus |
Myocarditis | Neuroleptic malignant syndrome | Gastroesophageal Reflux |
Venous thromboembolism | Hyperlipidemia | |
Hypertension | ||
Orthostatic hypotension | ||
Sedation | ||
Seizures | ||
Sialorrhea | ||
Sinus tachycardia | ||
Urinary changes (eg, enuresis, incontinence) | ||
Weight gain |
CONCLUSION
Clozapine has been a very successful treatment for patients with schizophrenia who have failed other antipsychotic therapies. However, fears of potential side effects and frequent monitoring have limited its use and led to unnecessary discontinuation. To mitigate risk for serious complications, we hope to increase hospitalists' awareness of prevention, monitoring, and treatment of side effects, and to promote comfort with circumstances that warrant continuation or discontinuation of clozapine (Table 3). The hospitalist plays a crucial role in managing these complications as well as conveying information and recommendations to primary care providers; as such, their familiarity with the medication is essential for proper management of individuals who take clozapine.
Take‐Home Points |
---|
1. Clozapine is the gold standard for treatment‐resistant schizophrenia; however, its use is limited by side effects, many of which can be successfully treated by internists. |
2. There are few indications for discontinuing clozapine (myocarditis, small‐bowel obstruction, agranulocytosis). The psychiatry service should be consulted in the event that clozapine is discontinued. |
3. Seizures are not an indication for discontinuing clozapine; instead, we recommend adding an antiepileptic drug. |
4. All second‐generation antipsychotics are associated with diabetes mellitus and significant weight gain. Clozapine is more highly associated with metabolic side effects than many other medications in this class. |
5. Sedation, sialorrhea, and constipation are common and can be managed pharmacologically and with behavioral interventions. |
Disclosure: Nothing to report.
- Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(1):CD000059. , , , .
- Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(4):600–610. , , , et al.
- Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second‐generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):715–723. , , , et al.
- Effects of clozapine on positive and negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151(1):20–26. , , , et al.
- Clozapine for the treatment‐resistant schizophrenic. A double‐blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45(9):789–796. , , , .
- Clozapine treatment for suicidality in schizophrenia: International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(1):82–91. , , , , , .
- 11‐year follow‐up of mortality in patients with schizophrenia: a population‐based cohort study (FIN11 study). Lancet. 2009;374(9690):620–627. , , , et al.
- Clozapine use and relapses of substance use disorder among patients with co‐occurring schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):637–643. , , , , .
- Outcomes for schizophrenia patients with clozapine treatment: how good does it get? J Psychopharmacol. 2009;23(8):957–965. , , .
- http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/MDCdocs/Mortality%20and%20Morbidity%20Final%20Report%208.18.08.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2015. , , , . Morbidity and mortality in people with serious mental illness. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council. Available at:
- Pharmacological actions of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine: a review. Synapse. 1996;24(4):349–394. , .
- Clozapine. A novel antipsychotic agent. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(11):746–754. , .
- Reason for clozapine cessation. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;125(1):39–44. , .
- Termination of clozapine treatment due to medical reasons: when is it warranted and how can it be avoided? J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(6):603–613. , , , .
- Time to discontinuation of antipsychotic drugs in a schizophrenia cohort: influence of current treatment strategies. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014;4(6):228–239. , , , , , .
- Clozapine‐related seizures. Neurology. 1991;41(3):369–371. , , .
- Clozapine‐related EEG changes and seizures: dose and plasma‐level relationships. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2011;1(2):47–66. , , , .
- Review and management of clozapine side effects. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(suppl 8):14–17; discussion 18–19. .
- Epilepsy, psychosis and clozapine. Human Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 2002;17:115–119. , .
- Response of patients with treatment‐refractory schizophrenia to clozapine within three serum level ranges. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153(12):1579–1584. , , , , , .
- When can patients with potentially life‐threatening adverse effects be rechallenged with clozapine? A systematic review of the published literature. Schizophr Res. 2012;134(2–3):180–186. , , , , .
- Clinical profile of clozapine: adverse reactions and agranulocytosis. Psychiatr Q. 1992;63(1):51–70. , .
- Clozapine and hypertension: a chart review of 82 patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(5):686–689. , , , , , .
- Adverse cardiac effects associated with clozapine. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005;25(1):32–41. , , .
- Clozapine induced myocarditis: a rare but fatal complication. Int J Cardiol. 2006;112(2):e5–e6. , , , , .
- Myocarditis and cardiomyopathy associated with clozapine. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1841–1845. , , , .
- Life‐threatening clozapine‐induced gastrointestinal hypomotility: an analysis of 102 cases. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(5):759–768. , , , .
- Fatalities associated with clozapine‐related constipation and bowel obstruction: a literature review and two case reports. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(4):416–419. , , , .
- Death from clozapine‐induced constipation: case report and literature review. Psychosomatics. 2002;43(1):71–73. , , .
- Clozapine: a clinical review of adverse effects and management. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2003;15(1):33–48. , , , , , .
- Beyond white blood cell monitoring: screening in the initial phase of clozapine therapy. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73(10):1307–1312. , , , , .
- Clozapine [package insert]. Sellersville, PA: TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA; 2013. Available at: https://www.clozapineregistry.com/insert.pdf.ashx. Accessed October 27, 2014.
- Clozapine‐induced agranulocytosis. Incidence and risk factors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(3):162–167. , , , , .
- Clozaril (clozapine) prescribing information. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/019758s069s071lbl.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2015.
- Clozapine therapy during cancer treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(1):175. .
- Continuation of clozapine during chemotherapy: a case report and review of literature. Psychosomatics. 2014;55(6):673–679. , , , , .
- Clozapine use in HIV‐infected schizophrenia patients: a case‐based discussion and review. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(6):626–632. , , .
- Letter: clozapine and agranulocytosis. Lancet. 1975;2(7935):611. , , , .
- Effects of the clozapine national registry system on incidence of deaths related to agranulocytosis. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47(1):52–56. .
- White blood cell monitoring during long‐term clozapine treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(4):366–369. , .
- Add‐on filgrastim during clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of clozapine‐related granulocytopenia/agranulocytosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(2):236. , , .
- Add‐on filgrastim during clozapine rechallenge unsuccessful in preventing agranulocytosis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(5):576.e11–12. , , .
- Clozapine‐induced weight gain: prevalence and clinical relevance. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(1):68–72. , , , , , .
- Clozapine, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular risks and mortality: results of a 10‐year naturalistic study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(9):1116–1121. , , , et al.
- Effects of adjunctive metformin on metabolic traits in nondiabetic clozapine‐treated patients with schizophrenia and the effect of metformin discontinuation on body weight: a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(5):e424–e430. , , , et al.
- Topiramate for clozapine‐induced seizures. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158(6):968–969. , , , .
- Clozapine‐induced acute interstitial nephritis. Lancet. 1999;354(9185):1180–1181. , , , , .
- Update on the clinical efficacy and side effects of clozapine. Schizophr Bull. 1991;17(2):247–261. , , , , .
- Clozapine‐induced sialorrhea: pathophysiology and management strategies. Psychopharmacology. 2006;185(3):265–273. , , .
- Clozapine drug‐drug interactions: a review of the literature. Hum Psychopharm Clin. 1997;12(1):5–20. , , .
- The effect of smoking and cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 genetic polymorphism on clozapine clearance and dose requirement. Pharmacogenetics. 2003;13(3):169–172. , , .
- Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(1):CD000059. , , , .
- Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(4):600–610. , , , et al.
- Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second‐generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):715–723. , , , et al.
- Effects of clozapine on positive and negative symptoms in outpatients with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151(1):20–26. , , , et al.
- Clozapine for the treatment‐resistant schizophrenic. A double‐blind comparison with chlorpromazine. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45(9):789–796. , , , .
- Clozapine treatment for suicidality in schizophrenia: International Suicide Prevention Trial (InterSePT). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(1):82–91. , , , , , .
- 11‐year follow‐up of mortality in patients with schizophrenia: a population‐based cohort study (FIN11 study). Lancet. 2009;374(9690):620–627. , , , et al.
- Clozapine use and relapses of substance use disorder among patients with co‐occurring schizophrenia and substance use disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):637–643. , , , , .
- Outcomes for schizophrenia patients with clozapine treatment: how good does it get? J Psychopharmacol. 2009;23(8):957–965. , , .
- http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/MDCdocs/Mortality%20and%20Morbidity%20Final%20Report%208.18.08.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2015. , , , . Morbidity and mortality in people with serious mental illness. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) Medical Directors Council. Available at:
- Pharmacological actions of the atypical antipsychotic drug clozapine: a review. Synapse. 1996;24(4):349–394. , .
- Clozapine. A novel antipsychotic agent. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(11):746–754. , .
- Reason for clozapine cessation. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2012;125(1):39–44. , .
- Termination of clozapine treatment due to medical reasons: when is it warranted and how can it be avoided? J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(6):603–613. , , , .
- Time to discontinuation of antipsychotic drugs in a schizophrenia cohort: influence of current treatment strategies. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014;4(6):228–239. , , , , , .
- Clozapine‐related seizures. Neurology. 1991;41(3):369–371. , , .
- Clozapine‐related EEG changes and seizures: dose and plasma‐level relationships. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2011;1(2):47–66. , , , .
- Review and management of clozapine side effects. J Clin Psychiatry. 2000;61(suppl 8):14–17; discussion 18–19. .
- Epilepsy, psychosis and clozapine. Human Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 2002;17:115–119. , .
- Response of patients with treatment‐refractory schizophrenia to clozapine within three serum level ranges. Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153(12):1579–1584. , , , , , .
- When can patients with potentially life‐threatening adverse effects be rechallenged with clozapine? A systematic review of the published literature. Schizophr Res. 2012;134(2–3):180–186. , , , , .
- Clinical profile of clozapine: adverse reactions and agranulocytosis. Psychiatr Q. 1992;63(1):51–70. , .
- Clozapine and hypertension: a chart review of 82 patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65(5):686–689. , , , , , .
- Adverse cardiac effects associated with clozapine. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2005;25(1):32–41. , , .
- Clozapine induced myocarditis: a rare but fatal complication. Int J Cardiol. 2006;112(2):e5–e6. , , , , .
- Myocarditis and cardiomyopathy associated with clozapine. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1841–1845. , , , .
- Life‐threatening clozapine‐induced gastrointestinal hypomotility: an analysis of 102 cases. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008;69(5):759–768. , , , .
- Fatalities associated with clozapine‐related constipation and bowel obstruction: a literature review and two case reports. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(4):416–419. , , , .
- Death from clozapine‐induced constipation: case report and literature review. Psychosomatics. 2002;43(1):71–73. , , .
- Clozapine: a clinical review of adverse effects and management. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2003;15(1):33–48. , , , , , .
- Beyond white blood cell monitoring: screening in the initial phase of clozapine therapy. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73(10):1307–1312. , , , , .
- Clozapine [package insert]. Sellersville, PA: TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA; 2013. Available at: https://www.clozapineregistry.com/insert.pdf.ashx. Accessed October 27, 2014.
- Clozapine‐induced agranulocytosis. Incidence and risk factors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(3):162–167. , , , , .
- Clozaril (clozapine) prescribing information. Washington, DC: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/019758s069s071lbl.pdf. Accessed February 4, 2015.
- Clozapine therapy during cancer treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(1):175. .
- Continuation of clozapine during chemotherapy: a case report and review of literature. Psychosomatics. 2014;55(6):673–679. , , , , .
- Clozapine use in HIV‐infected schizophrenia patients: a case‐based discussion and review. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(6):626–632. , , .
- Letter: clozapine and agranulocytosis. Lancet. 1975;2(7935):611. , , , .
- Effects of the clozapine national registry system on incidence of deaths related to agranulocytosis. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47(1):52–56. .
- White blood cell monitoring during long‐term clozapine treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(4):366–369. , .
- Add‐on filgrastim during clozapine rechallenge in patients with a history of clozapine‐related granulocytopenia/agranulocytosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(2):236. , , .
- Add‐on filgrastim during clozapine rechallenge unsuccessful in preventing agranulocytosis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(5):576.e11–12. , , .
- Clozapine‐induced weight gain: prevalence and clinical relevance. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(1):68–72. , , , , , .
- Clozapine, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and cardiovascular risks and mortality: results of a 10‐year naturalistic study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(9):1116–1121. , , , et al.
- Effects of adjunctive metformin on metabolic traits in nondiabetic clozapine‐treated patients with schizophrenia and the effect of metformin discontinuation on body weight: a 24‐week, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(5):e424–e430. , , , et al.
- Topiramate for clozapine‐induced seizures. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158(6):968–969. , , , .
- Clozapine‐induced acute interstitial nephritis. Lancet. 1999;354(9185):1180–1181. , , , , .
- Update on the clinical efficacy and side effects of clozapine. Schizophr Bull. 1991;17(2):247–261. , , , , .
- Clozapine‐induced sialorrhea: pathophysiology and management strategies. Psychopharmacology. 2006;185(3):265–273. , , .
- Clozapine drug‐drug interactions: a review of the literature. Hum Psychopharm Clin. 1997;12(1):5–20. , , .
- The effect of smoking and cytochrome P450 CYP1A2 genetic polymorphism on clozapine clearance and dose requirement. Pharmacogenetics. 2003;13(3):169–172. , , .
Topical TXA decreases use of blood transfusions
Photo by Daniel Gay
Using topical tranexamic acid (TXA) in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty can reduce the need for blood transfusions, according to a study published in The Journal of Arthroplasty.
Topical TXA reduced the transfusion rate by 12%, thereby reducing transfusion costs.
Topical TXA also enabled about 9% more patients to be discharged to their homes rather than a skilled nursing facility, and it did not affect the rate of complications.
“Historically, with hip or knee replacement, there was a 25% to 30% chance of a blood transfusion,” said study author John Froehlich, MD, of The Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.
“We realized that this high frequency of transfusions was associated with longer hospital stays and a higher risk of infections, which we are always working to avoid. Tranexamic acid has been around for 30 years, but because there was concern about the danger of administering it intravenously, we opted to inject it in the joints. We found it to be effective in reducing ongoing blood loss and the subsequent need for transfusion, and we have now standardized the practice.”
TXA is a synthetic derivative of the amino acid lysine that produces antifibrinolytic activity by competitively inhibiting lysine binding sites on plasminogen molecules. TXA helps the body stabilize blood clot formation, thereby reducing bleeding at surgical sites.
Most protocols of TXA in total joint arthroplasty have involved intravenous delivery. However, studies have indicated that topical injection may provide advantages, such as potentially reduced costs with a single injection, surgeon control, and localization and concentration of the drug more precisely at the surgical site.
“As the evidence for topical TXA grew, our arthroplasty surgeons started adopting topical TXA for total joint arthroplasty,” Dr Froehlich said.
He and his colleagues studied topical TXA in patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty by 5 surgeons from March 2012 to March 2013. Of the 591 consecutive patients, 311 received topical TXA, and 280 served as controls.
The researchers found that topical TXA reduced the proportion of red blood cell units transfused by 18%, from 28.6% to 10.6% (P<0.001). The drug also reduce the number of patients who required transfusions by 12%, from 17.5% to 5.5% (P<0.001).
On, the other hand, there was no significant difference between the TXA and control groups with regard to tourniquet time, operative time, time in the operating room, or the length of hospital stay.
Still, more patients in the TXA arm than in the control arm were able to go home rather than to a subacute nursing facility—71.4% and 62.1%, respectively (P<0.02).
And TXA conferred a cost benefit based solely on the rate of transfusion reduction. The researchers’ cost analysis revealed a net savings of $8372.66 per 100 patients treated, which amounted to $83.73 per patient.
“[Topical TXA] reduces transfusion rates, increases home disposition, and reduces cost in primary hip and knee arthroplasty,” said study author Lee Rubin, MD, of The Miriam Hospital.
“[W]e have now developed a simple, standardized, and cost-effective protocol for the use of topical TXA during total joint replacement that can be immediately used by any surgeon around the world to improve patient care.”
Photo by Daniel Gay
Using topical tranexamic acid (TXA) in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty can reduce the need for blood transfusions, according to a study published in The Journal of Arthroplasty.
Topical TXA reduced the transfusion rate by 12%, thereby reducing transfusion costs.
Topical TXA also enabled about 9% more patients to be discharged to their homes rather than a skilled nursing facility, and it did not affect the rate of complications.
“Historically, with hip or knee replacement, there was a 25% to 30% chance of a blood transfusion,” said study author John Froehlich, MD, of The Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.
“We realized that this high frequency of transfusions was associated with longer hospital stays and a higher risk of infections, which we are always working to avoid. Tranexamic acid has been around for 30 years, but because there was concern about the danger of administering it intravenously, we opted to inject it in the joints. We found it to be effective in reducing ongoing blood loss and the subsequent need for transfusion, and we have now standardized the practice.”
TXA is a synthetic derivative of the amino acid lysine that produces antifibrinolytic activity by competitively inhibiting lysine binding sites on plasminogen molecules. TXA helps the body stabilize blood clot formation, thereby reducing bleeding at surgical sites.
Most protocols of TXA in total joint arthroplasty have involved intravenous delivery. However, studies have indicated that topical injection may provide advantages, such as potentially reduced costs with a single injection, surgeon control, and localization and concentration of the drug more precisely at the surgical site.
“As the evidence for topical TXA grew, our arthroplasty surgeons started adopting topical TXA for total joint arthroplasty,” Dr Froehlich said.
He and his colleagues studied topical TXA in patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty by 5 surgeons from March 2012 to March 2013. Of the 591 consecutive patients, 311 received topical TXA, and 280 served as controls.
The researchers found that topical TXA reduced the proportion of red blood cell units transfused by 18%, from 28.6% to 10.6% (P<0.001). The drug also reduce the number of patients who required transfusions by 12%, from 17.5% to 5.5% (P<0.001).
On, the other hand, there was no significant difference between the TXA and control groups with regard to tourniquet time, operative time, time in the operating room, or the length of hospital stay.
Still, more patients in the TXA arm than in the control arm were able to go home rather than to a subacute nursing facility—71.4% and 62.1%, respectively (P<0.02).
And TXA conferred a cost benefit based solely on the rate of transfusion reduction. The researchers’ cost analysis revealed a net savings of $8372.66 per 100 patients treated, which amounted to $83.73 per patient.
“[Topical TXA] reduces transfusion rates, increases home disposition, and reduces cost in primary hip and knee arthroplasty,” said study author Lee Rubin, MD, of The Miriam Hospital.
“[W]e have now developed a simple, standardized, and cost-effective protocol for the use of topical TXA during total joint replacement that can be immediately used by any surgeon around the world to improve patient care.”
Photo by Daniel Gay
Using topical tranexamic acid (TXA) in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty can reduce the need for blood transfusions, according to a study published in The Journal of Arthroplasty.
Topical TXA reduced the transfusion rate by 12%, thereby reducing transfusion costs.
Topical TXA also enabled about 9% more patients to be discharged to their homes rather than a skilled nursing facility, and it did not affect the rate of complications.
“Historically, with hip or knee replacement, there was a 25% to 30% chance of a blood transfusion,” said study author John Froehlich, MD, of The Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island.
“We realized that this high frequency of transfusions was associated with longer hospital stays and a higher risk of infections, which we are always working to avoid. Tranexamic acid has been around for 30 years, but because there was concern about the danger of administering it intravenously, we opted to inject it in the joints. We found it to be effective in reducing ongoing blood loss and the subsequent need for transfusion, and we have now standardized the practice.”
TXA is a synthetic derivative of the amino acid lysine that produces antifibrinolytic activity by competitively inhibiting lysine binding sites on plasminogen molecules. TXA helps the body stabilize blood clot formation, thereby reducing bleeding at surgical sites.
Most protocols of TXA in total joint arthroplasty have involved intravenous delivery. However, studies have indicated that topical injection may provide advantages, such as potentially reduced costs with a single injection, surgeon control, and localization and concentration of the drug more precisely at the surgical site.
“As the evidence for topical TXA grew, our arthroplasty surgeons started adopting topical TXA for total joint arthroplasty,” Dr Froehlich said.
He and his colleagues studied topical TXA in patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty by 5 surgeons from March 2012 to March 2013. Of the 591 consecutive patients, 311 received topical TXA, and 280 served as controls.
The researchers found that topical TXA reduced the proportion of red blood cell units transfused by 18%, from 28.6% to 10.6% (P<0.001). The drug also reduce the number of patients who required transfusions by 12%, from 17.5% to 5.5% (P<0.001).
On, the other hand, there was no significant difference between the TXA and control groups with regard to tourniquet time, operative time, time in the operating room, or the length of hospital stay.
Still, more patients in the TXA arm than in the control arm were able to go home rather than to a subacute nursing facility—71.4% and 62.1%, respectively (P<0.02).
And TXA conferred a cost benefit based solely on the rate of transfusion reduction. The researchers’ cost analysis revealed a net savings of $8372.66 per 100 patients treated, which amounted to $83.73 per patient.
“[Topical TXA] reduces transfusion rates, increases home disposition, and reduces cost in primary hip and knee arthroplasty,” said study author Lee Rubin, MD, of The Miriam Hospital.
“[W]e have now developed a simple, standardized, and cost-effective protocol for the use of topical TXA during total joint replacement that can be immediately used by any surgeon around the world to improve patient care.”
Team discovers how cerebral malaria kills children
at Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Photo by Jim Peck
After grant money brought magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to a hospital in Africa, researchers were able to uncover the cause of death in children with cerebral malaria.
MRI scans revealed that, in some children, the brain can become so swollen that it is forced out through the bottom of the skull and compresses the brain stem. This pressure causes the children to stop breathing and die.
The researchers reported these findings in NEJM.
“Because we know now that the brain swelling is what causes death, we can work to find new treatments,” said study author Terrie Taylor, DO, of Michigan State University in East Lansing.
“The next step is to identify what’s causing the swelling and then develop treatments targeting those causes. It’s also possible that using ventilators to keep the children breathing until the swelling subsides might save lives, but ventilators are few and far between in Africa at the moment.”
Scans reveal brain swelling
In 2008, GE Healthcare provided a $1 million MRI to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi, where Dr Taylor spends 6 months of every year treating and studying children with malaria.
Dr Taylor and her colleagues used the MRI to view brain images from hundreds of children with cerebral malaria, comparing findings in those who died to those who survived.
The team imaged 168 children with cerebral malaria (as defined by the World Health Organization). Fifteen percent (25/168) of the children died. And 84% of these children (21/25) had evidence of severe brain swelling at admission.
In contrast, the researchers found evidence of severe brain swelling in 27% (39/143) of children who survived. And serial MRI scans revealed decreasing brain volume in the survivors who initially had brain swelling.
“We found that survivors’ brains were either never swollen or decreased in size after 2 to 3 days,” Dr Taylor said. “This was a triumphant moment. I wanted to say to the parasite, ‘Ha! You never thought we’d get an MRI, did you?’”
at Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Photo by Jim Peck
After grant money brought magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to a hospital in Africa, researchers were able to uncover the cause of death in children with cerebral malaria.
MRI scans revealed that, in some children, the brain can become so swollen that it is forced out through the bottom of the skull and compresses the brain stem. This pressure causes the children to stop breathing and die.
The researchers reported these findings in NEJM.
“Because we know now that the brain swelling is what causes death, we can work to find new treatments,” said study author Terrie Taylor, DO, of Michigan State University in East Lansing.
“The next step is to identify what’s causing the swelling and then develop treatments targeting those causes. It’s also possible that using ventilators to keep the children breathing until the swelling subsides might save lives, but ventilators are few and far between in Africa at the moment.”
Scans reveal brain swelling
In 2008, GE Healthcare provided a $1 million MRI to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi, where Dr Taylor spends 6 months of every year treating and studying children with malaria.
Dr Taylor and her colleagues used the MRI to view brain images from hundreds of children with cerebral malaria, comparing findings in those who died to those who survived.
The team imaged 168 children with cerebral malaria (as defined by the World Health Organization). Fifteen percent (25/168) of the children died. And 84% of these children (21/25) had evidence of severe brain swelling at admission.
In contrast, the researchers found evidence of severe brain swelling in 27% (39/143) of children who survived. And serial MRI scans revealed decreasing brain volume in the survivors who initially had brain swelling.
“We found that survivors’ brains were either never swollen or decreased in size after 2 to 3 days,” Dr Taylor said. “This was a triumphant moment. I wanted to say to the parasite, ‘Ha! You never thought we’d get an MRI, did you?’”
at Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Photo by Jim Peck
After grant money brought magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to a hospital in Africa, researchers were able to uncover the cause of death in children with cerebral malaria.
MRI scans revealed that, in some children, the brain can become so swollen that it is forced out through the bottom of the skull and compresses the brain stem. This pressure causes the children to stop breathing and die.
The researchers reported these findings in NEJM.
“Because we know now that the brain swelling is what causes death, we can work to find new treatments,” said study author Terrie Taylor, DO, of Michigan State University in East Lansing.
“The next step is to identify what’s causing the swelling and then develop treatments targeting those causes. It’s also possible that using ventilators to keep the children breathing until the swelling subsides might save lives, but ventilators are few and far between in Africa at the moment.”
Scans reveal brain swelling
In 2008, GE Healthcare provided a $1 million MRI to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi, where Dr Taylor spends 6 months of every year treating and studying children with malaria.
Dr Taylor and her colleagues used the MRI to view brain images from hundreds of children with cerebral malaria, comparing findings in those who died to those who survived.
The team imaged 168 children with cerebral malaria (as defined by the World Health Organization). Fifteen percent (25/168) of the children died. And 84% of these children (21/25) had evidence of severe brain swelling at admission.
In contrast, the researchers found evidence of severe brain swelling in 27% (39/143) of children who survived. And serial MRI scans revealed decreasing brain volume in the survivors who initially had brain swelling.
“We found that survivors’ brains were either never swollen or decreased in size after 2 to 3 days,” Dr Taylor said. “This was a triumphant moment. I wanted to say to the parasite, ‘Ha! You never thought we’d get an MRI, did you?’”
Multifaceted Hospitalist QI Intervention
Waste in US healthcare is a public health threat, with an estimated value of $910 billion per year.[1] It constitutes some of the relatively high per‐discharge healthcare spending seen in the United States when compared to other nations.[2] Waste takes many forms, one of which is excessive use of diagnostic laboratory testing.[1] Many hospital providers obtain common labs, such as complete blood counts (CBCs) and basic metabolic panels (BMPs), in an open‐ended, daily manner for their hospitalized patients, without regard for the patient's clinical condition or despite stability of the previous results. Reasons for ordering these tests in a nonpatient‐centered manner include provider convenience (such as inclusion in an order set), ease of access, habit, or defensive practice.[3, 4, 5] All of these reasons may represent waste.
Although the potential waste of routine daily labs may seem small, the frequency with which they are ordered results in a substantial real and potential cost, both financially and clinically. Multiple studies have shown a link between excessive diagnostic phlebotomy and hospital‐acquired anemia.[6, 7, 8, 9] Hospital‐acquired anemia itself has been associated with increased mortality.[10] In addition to blood loss and financial cost, patient experience and satisfaction are also detrimentally affected by excessive laboratory testing in the form of pain and inconvenience from the act of phlebotomy.[11]
There are many reports of strategies to decrease excessive diagnostic laboratory testing as a means of addressing this waste in the inpatient setting.[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] All of these studies have taken place in a traditional academic setting, and many implemented their intervention through a computer‐based order entry system. Based on the literature search regarding this topic, we found no examples of studies conducted among and within community‐based hospitalist practices. More recently, this issue was highlighted as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign sponsored by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, Consumer Reports, and more than 60 specialty societies. The Society of Hospital Medicine, the professional society for hospitalists, recommended avoidance of repetitive common laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability.[22]
Much has been written about quality improvement (QI) by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine, and others.[23, 24, 25] How best to move from a Choosing Wisely recommendation to highly reliable incorporation in clinical practice in a community setting is not known and likely varies depending upon the care environment. Successful QI interventions are often multifaceted and include academic detailing and provider education, transparent display of data, and regular audit and feedback of performance data.[26, 27, 28, 29] Prior to the publication of the Society of Hospital Medicine's Choosing Wisely recommendations, we chose to implement the recommendation to decrease ordering of daily labs using 3 QI strategies in our community 4‐hospital health system.
METHODS
Study Participants
This activity was undertaken as a QI initiative by Swedish Hospital Medicine (SHM), a 53‐provider employed hospitalist group that staffs a total of 1420 beds across 4 inpatient facilities. SHM has a longstanding record of working together as a team on QI projects.
An informal preliminary audit of our common lab ordering by a member of the study team revealed multiple examples of labs ordered every day without medical‐record evidence of intervention or management decisions being made based on the results. This preliminary activity raised the notion within the hospitalist group that this was a topic ripe for intervention and improvement. Four common labs, CBC, BMP, nutrition panel (called TPN 2 in our system, consisting of a BMP and magnesium and phosphorus) and comprehensive metabolic panel (BMP and liver function tests), formed the bulk of the repetitively ordered labs and were the focus of our activity. We excluded prothrombin time/International Normalized Ratio, as it was less clear that obtaining these daily clearly represented waste. We then reviewed medical literature for successful QI strategies and chose academic detailing, transparent display of data, and audit and feedback as our QI tactics.[29]
Using data from our electronic medical record, we chose a convenience preintervention period of 10 months for our baseline data. We allowed for a 2‐month wash‐in period in August 2013, and a convenience period of 7 months was chosen as the intervention period.
Intervention
An introductory email was sent out in mid‐August 2013 to all hospitalist providers describing the waste and potential harm to patients associated with unnecessary common blood tests, in particular those ordered as daily. The email recommended 2 changes: (1) immediate cessation of the practice of ordering common labs as daily, in an open, unending manner and (2) assessing the need for common labs in the next 24 hours, and ordering based on that need, but no further into the future.
Hospitalist providers were additionally informed that the number of common labs ordered daily would be tracked prospectively, with monthly reporting of individual provider ordering. In addition, the 5 members of the hospitalist team who most frequently ordered common labs as daily during January 2013 to March 2013 were sent individual emails informing them of their top‐5 position.
During the 7‐month intervention period, a monthly email was sent to all members of the hospitalist team with 4 basic components: (1) reiteration of the recommendations and reasoning stated in the original email; (2) a list of all members of the hospitalist team and the corresponding frequency of common labs ordered as daily (open ended) per provider for the month; (3) a recommendation to discontinue any common labs ordered as daily; and (4) at least 1 example of a patient cared for during the month by the hospitalist team, who had at least 1 common lab ordered for at least 5 days in a row, with no mention of the results in the progress notes and no apparent contribution to the management of the medical conditions for which the patient was being treated.
The change in number of tests ordered during the intervention was not shared with the team until early January 2014.
Data Elements and Endpoints
Number of common labs ordered as daily, and the total number of common labs per hospital‐day, ordered by any frequency, on hospitalist patients were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Hospitalist patients were defined as those both admitted and discharged by a hospitalist provider. We chose to compare the 10 months prior to the intervention with the 7 months during the intervention, allowing 1 month as the intervention wash‐in period. No other interventions related to lab ordering occurred during the study period. Additional variables collected included duration of hospitalization, mortality, readmission, and transfusion data. Consistency of providers in the preintervention and intervention period was high. Two providers were included in some of the preintervention data, but were not included in the intervention data, as they both left for other positions. Otherwise, all other providers in the data were consistent between the 2 time periods.
The primary endpoint was chosen a priori as the total number of common labs ordered per hospital‐day. Additionally, we identified a priori potential confounders, including age, sex, and primary discharge diagnosis, as captured by the all‐patient refined diagnosis‐related group (APR‐DRG, hereafter DRG). DRG was chosen as a clinical risk adjustment variable because there does not exist an established method to model the effects of clinical conditions on the propensity to obtain labs, the primary endpoint. Many models used for risk adjustment in patient quality reporting use hospital mortality as the primary endpoint, not the need for laboratory testing.[30, 31] As our primary endpoint was common labs and not mortality, we chose DRG as the best single variable to model changes in the clinical case mix that might affect the number of common labs.
Secondary endpoints were also determined a priori. Out of desire to assess the patient safety implications of an intervention targeting decreased monitoring, we included hospital mortality, duration of hospitalization, and readmission as safety variables. Two secondary endpoints were obtained as possible additional efficacy endpoints to test the hypothesis that the intervention might be associated with a reduction in transfusion burden: red blood cell transfusion and transfusion volume. We also tracked the frequency with which providers ordered common labs as daily in the baseline and intervention periods, as this was the behavior targeted by the interventions.
Costs to the hospital to produce the lab studies were also considered as a secondary endpoint. Median hospital costs were obtained from the first‐quarter, 2013 Premier dataset, a national dataset of hospital costs (basic metabolic panel $14.69, complete blood count $11.68, comprehensive metabolic panel $18.66). Of note, the Premier data did not include cost data on what our institution calls a TPN 2, and BMP cost was used as a substitute, given the overlap of the 2 tests' components and a desire to conservatively estimate the effects on cost to produce. Additionally, we factored in estimate of hospitalist and analyst time at $150/hour and $75/hour, respectively, to conduct that data abstraction and analysis and to manage the program. We did not formally factor in other costs, including electronic medical record acquisition costs.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the 2 cohorts. To test our primary hypothesis about the association between cohort membership and number of common labs per patient day, a clustered multivariable linear regression model was constructed to adjust for the a priori identified potential confounders, including sex, age, and principle discharge diagnosis. Each DRG was entered as a categorical variable in the model. Clustering was employed to account for correlation of lab ordering behavior by a given hospitalist. Separate clustered multivariable models were constructed to test the association between cohort and secondary outcomes, including duration of hospitalization, readmission, mortality, transfusion frequency, and transfusion volume using the same potential confounders. All P values were 2‐sided, and a P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted with Stata 11.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). The study was reviewed by the Swedish Health Services Clinical Research Center and determined to be nonhuman subjects research.
RESULTS
Patient Characteristics
Patient characteristics in the before and after cohorts are shown in Table 1. Both proportion of male sex (44.9% vs 44.9%, P=1.0) and the mean age (64.6 vs 64.8 years, P=0.5) did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts. Interestingly, there was a significant change in the distribution of DRGs between the 2 cohorts, with each of the top 10 DRGs becoming more common in the intervention cohort. For example, the percentage of patients with sepsis or severe sepsis, DRGs 871 and 872, increased by 2.2% (8.2% vs 10.4%, P<0.01).
Baseline, n=7832 | Intervention, n=5759 | P Valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Age, y, mean (SD) | 64.6 (19.6) | 64.8 | 0.5 |
Male, n (%) | 3,514 (44.9) | 2,585 (44.9) | 1.0 |
Primary discharge diagnosis, DRG no., name, n (%)b | |||
871 and 872, severe sepsis | 641 (8.2) | 599 (10.4) | <0.01 |
885, psychoses | 72 (0.9) | 141 (2.4) | <0.01 |
392, esophagitis, gastroenteritis and miscellaneous intestinal disorders | 171 (2.2) | 225 (3.9) | <0.01 |
313, chest pain | 114 (1.5) | 123 (2.1) | <0.01 |
378, gastrointestinal bleed | 100 (1.3) | 117 (2.0) | <0.01 |
291, congestive heart failure and shock | 83 (1.1) | 101 (1.8) | <0.01 |
189, pulmonary edema and respiratory failure | 69 (0.9) | 112 (1.9) | <0.01 |
312, syncope and collapse | 82 (1.0) | 119 (2.1) | <0.01 |
64, intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral infarction | 49 (0.6) | 54 (0.9) | 0.04 |
603, cellulitis | 96 (1.2) | 94 (1.6) | 0.05 |
Primary Endpoint
In the unadjusted comparison, 3 of the 4 common labs showed a similar decrease in the intervention cohort from the baseline (Table 2). For example, the mean number of CBCs ordered per patient‐day decreased by 0.15 labs per patient day (1.06 vs 0.91, P<0.01). The total number of common labs ordered per patient‐day decreased by 0.30 labs per patient‐day (2.06 vs 1.76, P<0.01) in the unadjusted analysis (Figure 1 and Table 2). Part of our hypothesis was that decreasing the number of labs that were ordered as daily, in an open‐ended manner, would likely decrease the number of common labs obtained per day. We found that the number of labs ordered as daily decreased by 0.71 labs per patient‐day (0.872.90 vs 0.161.01, P<0.01), an 81.6% decrease from the preintervention time period.
Baseline | Intervention | P Valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Complete blood count, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 1.06 (0.76) | 0.91 (0.75) | <0.01 |
Basic metabolic panel, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 0.68 (0.71) | 0.55 (0.60) | <0.01 |
Nutrition panel, mean (SD)b | 0.06 (0.24) | 0.07 (0.32) | 0.01 |
Comprehensive metabolic panel, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 0.27 (0.49) | 0.23 (0.46) | <0.01 |
Total no. of basic labs ordered per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 2.06 (1.40) | 1.76 (1.37) | <0.01 |
Transfused, n (%) | 414 (5.3) | 268 (4.7) | 0.1 |
Transfused volume, mL, mean (SD) | 847.3 (644.3) | 744.9 (472.0) | 0.02 |
Length of stay, days, mean (SD) | 3.79 (4.58) | 3.81 (4.50) | 0.7 |
Readmitted, n (%) | 1049 (13.3) | 733 (12.7) | 0.3 |
Died, n (%) | 173 (2.2) | 104 (1.8) | 0.1 |

In our multivariable regression model, after adjusting for sex, age, and the primary reason for admission as captured by DRG, the number of common labs ordered per day was reduced by 0.22 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.11; P<0.01). This represents a 10.7% reduction in common labs ordered per patient day.
Secondary Endpoints
Table 2 shows secondary outcomes of the study. Patient safety endpoints were not changed in unadjusted analyses. For example, the hospital length of stay in number of days was similar in both the baseline and intervention cohorts (3.784.58 vs 3.814.50, P=0.7). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the hospital mortality rate during the intervention period by 0.4% (2.2% vs 1.8%, P=0.1). No significant differences were found when the multivariable model was rerun for each of the 3 secondary endpoints individually, readmissions, mortality, and length of stay.
Two secondary efficacy endpoints were also evaluated. The percentage of patients receiving transfusions did not decrease in either the unadjusted or adjusted analysis. However, the volume of blood transfused per patient who received a transfusion decreased by 91.9 mL in the bivariate analysis (836.8 mL621.4 mL vs 744.9 mL472.0 mL; P=0.03) (Table 2). The decrease, however, was not significant in the multivariable model (127.2 mL; 95% CI, 257.9 to 3.6; P=0.06).
Cost Data
Based on the Premier estimate of the cost to the hospital to perform the common lab tests, the intervention likely decreased direct costs by $16.19 per patient (95% CI, $12.95 to $19.43). The cost saving was decreased by the expense of the intervention, which is estimated to be $8000 and was driven by hospitalist and analyst time. Based on the patient volume in our health system, and factoring in the cost of implementation, we estimate that this intervention resulted in annualized savings of $151,682 (95% CI, $119,746 to $187,618).
DISCUSSION
Ordering common labs daily is a routine practice among providers at many institutions. In fact, at our institution, prior to the intervention, 42% of all common labs were ordered as daily, meaning they were obtained each day without regard to the previous value or the patient's clinical condition. The practice is one of convenience or habit, and many times not clinically indicated.[5, 32]
We observed a significant reduction in the number of common labs ordered as daily, and more importantly, the total number of common labs in the intervention period. The rapid change in provider behavior is notable and likely due to several factors. First, there was a general sentiment among the hospitalists in the merits of the project. Second, there may have been an aversion to the display of lower performance relative to peers in the monthly e‐mails. Third, and perhaps most importantly, our hospitalist team had worked together for many years on projects like this, creating a culture of QI and willingness to change practice patterns in response to data.[33]
Concern about decreasing waste and increasing the value of healthcare abound, particularly in the United States.[1] Decreasing the cost to produce equivalent or improved health outcomes for a given episode of care has been proposed as a way to improve value.[34] This intervention results in modest waste reduction, the benefits of which are readily apparent in a DRG‐based reimbursement model, where the hospital realizes any saving in the cost of producing a hospital stay, as well as in a total cost of care environment, such as could be found in an Accountable Care Organization.
The previous work in the field of lab reduction has all been performed at university‐affiliated academic institutions. We demonstrated that the QI tactics described in the literature can be successfully employed in a community‐based hospitalist practice. This has broad applicability to increasing the value of healthcare and could serve as a model for future community‐based hospitalist QI projects.
The study has several limitations. First, the length of follow‐up is only 7 months, and although there was rapid and effective adoption of the intervention, provider behavior may regress to previous practice patterns over time. Second, the simple before‐after nature of our trial design raises the possibility that environmental influences exist and that changes in ordering behavior may have been the result of something other than the intervention. Most notably, the Choosing Wisely recommendation for hospitalists was published in September of 2013, coinciding with our intervention period.[22] The reduction in number of labs ordered may have been a partial result of these recommendations. Third, the 2 cohorts included different times of the year based on the distribution of DRGs, which likely had a different composition of diagnoses being treated. To address this we adjusted for DRG, but there may have been some residual confounding, as some diagnoses may be managed with more laboratory tests than others in a way that was not fully adjusted for in our model. Fourth, the intervention was made possible because of the substantial and ongoing investments that our health system has made in our electronic medical record and data analytics capability. The variability of these resources across institutions limits generalizability. Fifth, although we used the QI tools that were described, we did not do a formal process map or utilize other Lean or Six Sigma tools. As the healthcare industry continues on its journey to high reliability, these use tools will hopefully become more widespread. We demonstrated that even with these simple tactics, significant progress can be made.
Finally, there exists a concern that decreasing regular laboratory monitoring might be associated with undetected worsening in the patient's clinical status. We did not observe any significant adverse effects on coarse measures of clinical performance, including length of stay, readmission rate, or mortality. However, we did not collect data on all clinical parameters, and it is possible that there could have been an undetected effect on incident renal failure or hemodialysis or intensive care unit transfer. Other studies on this type of intervention have evaluated some of these possible adverse outcomes and have not noted an association.[12, 15, 18, 20, 22] Future studies should evaluate harms associated with implementation of Choosing Wisely and other interventions targeted at waste reduction. Future work is also needed to disseminate more formal and rigorous QI tools and methodologies.
CONCLUSION
We implemented a multifaceted QI intervention including provider education, transparent display of data, and audit and feedback that was associated with a significant reduction in the number of common labs ordered in a large community‐based hospitalist group, without evidence of harm. Further study is needed to understand how hospitalist groups can optimally decrease waste in healthcare.
Disclosures
This work was performed at the Swedish Health System, Seattle, Washington. Dr. Corson served as primary author, designed the study protocol, obtained the data, analyzed all the data and wrote the manuscript and its revisions, and approved the final version of the manuscript. He attests that no undisclosed authors contributed to the manuscript. Dr. Fan designed the study protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Mr. White reviewed the study protocol, obtained the study data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Sean D. Sullivan, PhD, designed the study protocol, obtained study data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Asakura designed the study protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Myint reviewed the study protocol and data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Dale designed the study protocol, analyzed the data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- Eliminating “waste” in health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–1516. .
- The U.S. health system in perspective: a comparison of twelve industrialized nations. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2011;16:1–14. .
- Is the defensive use of diagnostic tests good for patients, or bad? Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):19–28. , .
- Physician characteristics and organizational factors influencing use of ambulatory tests. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:401–415. , .
- Pilot Group of the Appropriate Utilization of Laboratory Tests (REDCONLAB) Working Group. Differences in laboratory requesting patterns in emergency department in Spain. Ann Clin Biochem. 2013;50:353–359. , , ;
- Hospital‐acquired anemia. J Med Assoc Thail. 2006;89(1):63–67. , .
- Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):520–524. , , , , .
- Phlebotomy for diagnostic laboratory tests in adults. Pattern of use and effect on transfusion requirements. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(19):1233–1235. , .
- Diagnostic blood loss from phlebotomy and hospital‐acquired anemia during acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1646–1653. , , , et al.
- Hospital‐acquired anemia: prevalence, outcomes, and healthcare implications. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):506–512. , , , et al.
- Laboratory phlebotomy. College of American Pathologists Q‐Probe study of patient satisfaction and complications in 23,783 patients. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;115:867–872. , , .
- A cost‐effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university‐associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73(5):787–794. , , , et al.
- Inappropriate use of laboratory services: long term combined approach to modify request patterns. BMJ. 1990;301(6764):1305–1307. , .
- Effect of a controlled feedback intervention on laboratory test ordering by community physicians. Clin Chem. 2004;50(2):321–326. , .
- An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2005;17(3):243–248. , , , , .
- Surgical vampires and rising health care expenditure. Arch Surg. 2011;146(5):524–527. .
- Trial of strategy for reducing the use of laboratory tests. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6524):883–885. , , , et al.
- Improving house staff ordering of three common laboratory tests. Reductions in test ordering need not result in underutilization. Med Care. 1987;25(10):928–935. , , , et al.
- Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(2):200–206. , , , et al.
- Improving patient care the impact of peer management on test‐ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(3):196–204. , , , et al.
- The laboratory test justified. An effective means to reduce routine laboratory testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 1985;86(6):756–759. , , .
- Choosing wisely in adult hospital medicine: five opportunities for improved healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):486–492. , , , et al.
- Quality Improvement in the intensive care unit. In: Scales DC, Rubenfeld GD, eds. The Organization of Critical Care. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2014:279. .
- Intensive care unit quality improvement: a “how‐to” guide for the interdisciplinary team. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:211–218. , , , et al.
- Navigating adaptive challenges in quality improvement. BMJ Qual Safety. 2011;20(7):560–563. .
- A multifaceted intervention for quality improvement in a network of intensive care units: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;305:363–372. , , , et al.
- O'Neill SM. How do quality improvement interventions succeed? Archetypes of success and failure. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD282.html. Published 2011.
- Effect of a multifaceted intervention on use of evidence‐based therapies in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Brazil: the BRIDGE‐ACS randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:2041–2049. , , , et al.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259. , , , et al.
- Impact of the present‐on‐admission indicator on hospital quality measurement: experience with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Inpatient Quality Indicators. Med Care. 2008;46:112–119. , , , .
- Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality. JAMA. 2007;297:71–76. , , , et al.
- Primary care use of laboratory tests in Spain: measurement through appropriateness indicators. Clin Lab. 2014;60(3):483–490. , , , .
- What distinguishes top‐performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? a qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):384–390. , , , et al.
- What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–2481. .
Waste in US healthcare is a public health threat, with an estimated value of $910 billion per year.[1] It constitutes some of the relatively high per‐discharge healthcare spending seen in the United States when compared to other nations.[2] Waste takes many forms, one of which is excessive use of diagnostic laboratory testing.[1] Many hospital providers obtain common labs, such as complete blood counts (CBCs) and basic metabolic panels (BMPs), in an open‐ended, daily manner for their hospitalized patients, without regard for the patient's clinical condition or despite stability of the previous results. Reasons for ordering these tests in a nonpatient‐centered manner include provider convenience (such as inclusion in an order set), ease of access, habit, or defensive practice.[3, 4, 5] All of these reasons may represent waste.
Although the potential waste of routine daily labs may seem small, the frequency with which they are ordered results in a substantial real and potential cost, both financially and clinically. Multiple studies have shown a link between excessive diagnostic phlebotomy and hospital‐acquired anemia.[6, 7, 8, 9] Hospital‐acquired anemia itself has been associated with increased mortality.[10] In addition to blood loss and financial cost, patient experience and satisfaction are also detrimentally affected by excessive laboratory testing in the form of pain and inconvenience from the act of phlebotomy.[11]
There are many reports of strategies to decrease excessive diagnostic laboratory testing as a means of addressing this waste in the inpatient setting.[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] All of these studies have taken place in a traditional academic setting, and many implemented their intervention through a computer‐based order entry system. Based on the literature search regarding this topic, we found no examples of studies conducted among and within community‐based hospitalist practices. More recently, this issue was highlighted as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign sponsored by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, Consumer Reports, and more than 60 specialty societies. The Society of Hospital Medicine, the professional society for hospitalists, recommended avoidance of repetitive common laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability.[22]
Much has been written about quality improvement (QI) by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine, and others.[23, 24, 25] How best to move from a Choosing Wisely recommendation to highly reliable incorporation in clinical practice in a community setting is not known and likely varies depending upon the care environment. Successful QI interventions are often multifaceted and include academic detailing and provider education, transparent display of data, and regular audit and feedback of performance data.[26, 27, 28, 29] Prior to the publication of the Society of Hospital Medicine's Choosing Wisely recommendations, we chose to implement the recommendation to decrease ordering of daily labs using 3 QI strategies in our community 4‐hospital health system.
METHODS
Study Participants
This activity was undertaken as a QI initiative by Swedish Hospital Medicine (SHM), a 53‐provider employed hospitalist group that staffs a total of 1420 beds across 4 inpatient facilities. SHM has a longstanding record of working together as a team on QI projects.
An informal preliminary audit of our common lab ordering by a member of the study team revealed multiple examples of labs ordered every day without medical‐record evidence of intervention or management decisions being made based on the results. This preliminary activity raised the notion within the hospitalist group that this was a topic ripe for intervention and improvement. Four common labs, CBC, BMP, nutrition panel (called TPN 2 in our system, consisting of a BMP and magnesium and phosphorus) and comprehensive metabolic panel (BMP and liver function tests), formed the bulk of the repetitively ordered labs and were the focus of our activity. We excluded prothrombin time/International Normalized Ratio, as it was less clear that obtaining these daily clearly represented waste. We then reviewed medical literature for successful QI strategies and chose academic detailing, transparent display of data, and audit and feedback as our QI tactics.[29]
Using data from our electronic medical record, we chose a convenience preintervention period of 10 months for our baseline data. We allowed for a 2‐month wash‐in period in August 2013, and a convenience period of 7 months was chosen as the intervention period.
Intervention
An introductory email was sent out in mid‐August 2013 to all hospitalist providers describing the waste and potential harm to patients associated with unnecessary common blood tests, in particular those ordered as daily. The email recommended 2 changes: (1) immediate cessation of the practice of ordering common labs as daily, in an open, unending manner and (2) assessing the need for common labs in the next 24 hours, and ordering based on that need, but no further into the future.
Hospitalist providers were additionally informed that the number of common labs ordered daily would be tracked prospectively, with monthly reporting of individual provider ordering. In addition, the 5 members of the hospitalist team who most frequently ordered common labs as daily during January 2013 to March 2013 were sent individual emails informing them of their top‐5 position.
During the 7‐month intervention period, a monthly email was sent to all members of the hospitalist team with 4 basic components: (1) reiteration of the recommendations and reasoning stated in the original email; (2) a list of all members of the hospitalist team and the corresponding frequency of common labs ordered as daily (open ended) per provider for the month; (3) a recommendation to discontinue any common labs ordered as daily; and (4) at least 1 example of a patient cared for during the month by the hospitalist team, who had at least 1 common lab ordered for at least 5 days in a row, with no mention of the results in the progress notes and no apparent contribution to the management of the medical conditions for which the patient was being treated.
The change in number of tests ordered during the intervention was not shared with the team until early January 2014.
Data Elements and Endpoints
Number of common labs ordered as daily, and the total number of common labs per hospital‐day, ordered by any frequency, on hospitalist patients were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Hospitalist patients were defined as those both admitted and discharged by a hospitalist provider. We chose to compare the 10 months prior to the intervention with the 7 months during the intervention, allowing 1 month as the intervention wash‐in period. No other interventions related to lab ordering occurred during the study period. Additional variables collected included duration of hospitalization, mortality, readmission, and transfusion data. Consistency of providers in the preintervention and intervention period was high. Two providers were included in some of the preintervention data, but were not included in the intervention data, as they both left for other positions. Otherwise, all other providers in the data were consistent between the 2 time periods.
The primary endpoint was chosen a priori as the total number of common labs ordered per hospital‐day. Additionally, we identified a priori potential confounders, including age, sex, and primary discharge diagnosis, as captured by the all‐patient refined diagnosis‐related group (APR‐DRG, hereafter DRG). DRG was chosen as a clinical risk adjustment variable because there does not exist an established method to model the effects of clinical conditions on the propensity to obtain labs, the primary endpoint. Many models used for risk adjustment in patient quality reporting use hospital mortality as the primary endpoint, not the need for laboratory testing.[30, 31] As our primary endpoint was common labs and not mortality, we chose DRG as the best single variable to model changes in the clinical case mix that might affect the number of common labs.
Secondary endpoints were also determined a priori. Out of desire to assess the patient safety implications of an intervention targeting decreased monitoring, we included hospital mortality, duration of hospitalization, and readmission as safety variables. Two secondary endpoints were obtained as possible additional efficacy endpoints to test the hypothesis that the intervention might be associated with a reduction in transfusion burden: red blood cell transfusion and transfusion volume. We also tracked the frequency with which providers ordered common labs as daily in the baseline and intervention periods, as this was the behavior targeted by the interventions.
Costs to the hospital to produce the lab studies were also considered as a secondary endpoint. Median hospital costs were obtained from the first‐quarter, 2013 Premier dataset, a national dataset of hospital costs (basic metabolic panel $14.69, complete blood count $11.68, comprehensive metabolic panel $18.66). Of note, the Premier data did not include cost data on what our institution calls a TPN 2, and BMP cost was used as a substitute, given the overlap of the 2 tests' components and a desire to conservatively estimate the effects on cost to produce. Additionally, we factored in estimate of hospitalist and analyst time at $150/hour and $75/hour, respectively, to conduct that data abstraction and analysis and to manage the program. We did not formally factor in other costs, including electronic medical record acquisition costs.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the 2 cohorts. To test our primary hypothesis about the association between cohort membership and number of common labs per patient day, a clustered multivariable linear regression model was constructed to adjust for the a priori identified potential confounders, including sex, age, and principle discharge diagnosis. Each DRG was entered as a categorical variable in the model. Clustering was employed to account for correlation of lab ordering behavior by a given hospitalist. Separate clustered multivariable models were constructed to test the association between cohort and secondary outcomes, including duration of hospitalization, readmission, mortality, transfusion frequency, and transfusion volume using the same potential confounders. All P values were 2‐sided, and a P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted with Stata 11.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). The study was reviewed by the Swedish Health Services Clinical Research Center and determined to be nonhuman subjects research.
RESULTS
Patient Characteristics
Patient characteristics in the before and after cohorts are shown in Table 1. Both proportion of male sex (44.9% vs 44.9%, P=1.0) and the mean age (64.6 vs 64.8 years, P=0.5) did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts. Interestingly, there was a significant change in the distribution of DRGs between the 2 cohorts, with each of the top 10 DRGs becoming more common in the intervention cohort. For example, the percentage of patients with sepsis or severe sepsis, DRGs 871 and 872, increased by 2.2% (8.2% vs 10.4%, P<0.01).
Baseline, n=7832 | Intervention, n=5759 | P Valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Age, y, mean (SD) | 64.6 (19.6) | 64.8 | 0.5 |
Male, n (%) | 3,514 (44.9) | 2,585 (44.9) | 1.0 |
Primary discharge diagnosis, DRG no., name, n (%)b | |||
871 and 872, severe sepsis | 641 (8.2) | 599 (10.4) | <0.01 |
885, psychoses | 72 (0.9) | 141 (2.4) | <0.01 |
392, esophagitis, gastroenteritis and miscellaneous intestinal disorders | 171 (2.2) | 225 (3.9) | <0.01 |
313, chest pain | 114 (1.5) | 123 (2.1) | <0.01 |
378, gastrointestinal bleed | 100 (1.3) | 117 (2.0) | <0.01 |
291, congestive heart failure and shock | 83 (1.1) | 101 (1.8) | <0.01 |
189, pulmonary edema and respiratory failure | 69 (0.9) | 112 (1.9) | <0.01 |
312, syncope and collapse | 82 (1.0) | 119 (2.1) | <0.01 |
64, intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral infarction | 49 (0.6) | 54 (0.9) | 0.04 |
603, cellulitis | 96 (1.2) | 94 (1.6) | 0.05 |
Primary Endpoint
In the unadjusted comparison, 3 of the 4 common labs showed a similar decrease in the intervention cohort from the baseline (Table 2). For example, the mean number of CBCs ordered per patient‐day decreased by 0.15 labs per patient day (1.06 vs 0.91, P<0.01). The total number of common labs ordered per patient‐day decreased by 0.30 labs per patient‐day (2.06 vs 1.76, P<0.01) in the unadjusted analysis (Figure 1 and Table 2). Part of our hypothesis was that decreasing the number of labs that were ordered as daily, in an open‐ended manner, would likely decrease the number of common labs obtained per day. We found that the number of labs ordered as daily decreased by 0.71 labs per patient‐day (0.872.90 vs 0.161.01, P<0.01), an 81.6% decrease from the preintervention time period.
Baseline | Intervention | P Valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Complete blood count, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 1.06 (0.76) | 0.91 (0.75) | <0.01 |
Basic metabolic panel, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 0.68 (0.71) | 0.55 (0.60) | <0.01 |
Nutrition panel, mean (SD)b | 0.06 (0.24) | 0.07 (0.32) | 0.01 |
Comprehensive metabolic panel, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 0.27 (0.49) | 0.23 (0.46) | <0.01 |
Total no. of basic labs ordered per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 2.06 (1.40) | 1.76 (1.37) | <0.01 |
Transfused, n (%) | 414 (5.3) | 268 (4.7) | 0.1 |
Transfused volume, mL, mean (SD) | 847.3 (644.3) | 744.9 (472.0) | 0.02 |
Length of stay, days, mean (SD) | 3.79 (4.58) | 3.81 (4.50) | 0.7 |
Readmitted, n (%) | 1049 (13.3) | 733 (12.7) | 0.3 |
Died, n (%) | 173 (2.2) | 104 (1.8) | 0.1 |

In our multivariable regression model, after adjusting for sex, age, and the primary reason for admission as captured by DRG, the number of common labs ordered per day was reduced by 0.22 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.11; P<0.01). This represents a 10.7% reduction in common labs ordered per patient day.
Secondary Endpoints
Table 2 shows secondary outcomes of the study. Patient safety endpoints were not changed in unadjusted analyses. For example, the hospital length of stay in number of days was similar in both the baseline and intervention cohorts (3.784.58 vs 3.814.50, P=0.7). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the hospital mortality rate during the intervention period by 0.4% (2.2% vs 1.8%, P=0.1). No significant differences were found when the multivariable model was rerun for each of the 3 secondary endpoints individually, readmissions, mortality, and length of stay.
Two secondary efficacy endpoints were also evaluated. The percentage of patients receiving transfusions did not decrease in either the unadjusted or adjusted analysis. However, the volume of blood transfused per patient who received a transfusion decreased by 91.9 mL in the bivariate analysis (836.8 mL621.4 mL vs 744.9 mL472.0 mL; P=0.03) (Table 2). The decrease, however, was not significant in the multivariable model (127.2 mL; 95% CI, 257.9 to 3.6; P=0.06).
Cost Data
Based on the Premier estimate of the cost to the hospital to perform the common lab tests, the intervention likely decreased direct costs by $16.19 per patient (95% CI, $12.95 to $19.43). The cost saving was decreased by the expense of the intervention, which is estimated to be $8000 and was driven by hospitalist and analyst time. Based on the patient volume in our health system, and factoring in the cost of implementation, we estimate that this intervention resulted in annualized savings of $151,682 (95% CI, $119,746 to $187,618).
DISCUSSION
Ordering common labs daily is a routine practice among providers at many institutions. In fact, at our institution, prior to the intervention, 42% of all common labs were ordered as daily, meaning they were obtained each day without regard to the previous value or the patient's clinical condition. The practice is one of convenience or habit, and many times not clinically indicated.[5, 32]
We observed a significant reduction in the number of common labs ordered as daily, and more importantly, the total number of common labs in the intervention period. The rapid change in provider behavior is notable and likely due to several factors. First, there was a general sentiment among the hospitalists in the merits of the project. Second, there may have been an aversion to the display of lower performance relative to peers in the monthly e‐mails. Third, and perhaps most importantly, our hospitalist team had worked together for many years on projects like this, creating a culture of QI and willingness to change practice patterns in response to data.[33]
Concern about decreasing waste and increasing the value of healthcare abound, particularly in the United States.[1] Decreasing the cost to produce equivalent or improved health outcomes for a given episode of care has been proposed as a way to improve value.[34] This intervention results in modest waste reduction, the benefits of which are readily apparent in a DRG‐based reimbursement model, where the hospital realizes any saving in the cost of producing a hospital stay, as well as in a total cost of care environment, such as could be found in an Accountable Care Organization.
The previous work in the field of lab reduction has all been performed at university‐affiliated academic institutions. We demonstrated that the QI tactics described in the literature can be successfully employed in a community‐based hospitalist practice. This has broad applicability to increasing the value of healthcare and could serve as a model for future community‐based hospitalist QI projects.
The study has several limitations. First, the length of follow‐up is only 7 months, and although there was rapid and effective adoption of the intervention, provider behavior may regress to previous practice patterns over time. Second, the simple before‐after nature of our trial design raises the possibility that environmental influences exist and that changes in ordering behavior may have been the result of something other than the intervention. Most notably, the Choosing Wisely recommendation for hospitalists was published in September of 2013, coinciding with our intervention period.[22] The reduction in number of labs ordered may have been a partial result of these recommendations. Third, the 2 cohorts included different times of the year based on the distribution of DRGs, which likely had a different composition of diagnoses being treated. To address this we adjusted for DRG, but there may have been some residual confounding, as some diagnoses may be managed with more laboratory tests than others in a way that was not fully adjusted for in our model. Fourth, the intervention was made possible because of the substantial and ongoing investments that our health system has made in our electronic medical record and data analytics capability. The variability of these resources across institutions limits generalizability. Fifth, although we used the QI tools that were described, we did not do a formal process map or utilize other Lean or Six Sigma tools. As the healthcare industry continues on its journey to high reliability, these use tools will hopefully become more widespread. We demonstrated that even with these simple tactics, significant progress can be made.
Finally, there exists a concern that decreasing regular laboratory monitoring might be associated with undetected worsening in the patient's clinical status. We did not observe any significant adverse effects on coarse measures of clinical performance, including length of stay, readmission rate, or mortality. However, we did not collect data on all clinical parameters, and it is possible that there could have been an undetected effect on incident renal failure or hemodialysis or intensive care unit transfer. Other studies on this type of intervention have evaluated some of these possible adverse outcomes and have not noted an association.[12, 15, 18, 20, 22] Future studies should evaluate harms associated with implementation of Choosing Wisely and other interventions targeted at waste reduction. Future work is also needed to disseminate more formal and rigorous QI tools and methodologies.
CONCLUSION
We implemented a multifaceted QI intervention including provider education, transparent display of data, and audit and feedback that was associated with a significant reduction in the number of common labs ordered in a large community‐based hospitalist group, without evidence of harm. Further study is needed to understand how hospitalist groups can optimally decrease waste in healthcare.
Disclosures
This work was performed at the Swedish Health System, Seattle, Washington. Dr. Corson served as primary author, designed the study protocol, obtained the data, analyzed all the data and wrote the manuscript and its revisions, and approved the final version of the manuscript. He attests that no undisclosed authors contributed to the manuscript. Dr. Fan designed the study protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Mr. White reviewed the study protocol, obtained the study data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Sean D. Sullivan, PhD, designed the study protocol, obtained study data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Asakura designed the study protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Myint reviewed the study protocol and data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Dale designed the study protocol, analyzed the data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Waste in US healthcare is a public health threat, with an estimated value of $910 billion per year.[1] It constitutes some of the relatively high per‐discharge healthcare spending seen in the United States when compared to other nations.[2] Waste takes many forms, one of which is excessive use of diagnostic laboratory testing.[1] Many hospital providers obtain common labs, such as complete blood counts (CBCs) and basic metabolic panels (BMPs), in an open‐ended, daily manner for their hospitalized patients, without regard for the patient's clinical condition or despite stability of the previous results. Reasons for ordering these tests in a nonpatient‐centered manner include provider convenience (such as inclusion in an order set), ease of access, habit, or defensive practice.[3, 4, 5] All of these reasons may represent waste.
Although the potential waste of routine daily labs may seem small, the frequency with which they are ordered results in a substantial real and potential cost, both financially and clinically. Multiple studies have shown a link between excessive diagnostic phlebotomy and hospital‐acquired anemia.[6, 7, 8, 9] Hospital‐acquired anemia itself has been associated with increased mortality.[10] In addition to blood loss and financial cost, patient experience and satisfaction are also detrimentally affected by excessive laboratory testing in the form of pain and inconvenience from the act of phlebotomy.[11]
There are many reports of strategies to decrease excessive diagnostic laboratory testing as a means of addressing this waste in the inpatient setting.[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] All of these studies have taken place in a traditional academic setting, and many implemented their intervention through a computer‐based order entry system. Based on the literature search regarding this topic, we found no examples of studies conducted among and within community‐based hospitalist practices. More recently, this issue was highlighted as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign sponsored by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, Consumer Reports, and more than 60 specialty societies. The Society of Hospital Medicine, the professional society for hospitalists, recommended avoidance of repetitive common laboratory testing in the face of clinical stability.[22]
Much has been written about quality improvement (QI) by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine, and others.[23, 24, 25] How best to move from a Choosing Wisely recommendation to highly reliable incorporation in clinical practice in a community setting is not known and likely varies depending upon the care environment. Successful QI interventions are often multifaceted and include academic detailing and provider education, transparent display of data, and regular audit and feedback of performance data.[26, 27, 28, 29] Prior to the publication of the Society of Hospital Medicine's Choosing Wisely recommendations, we chose to implement the recommendation to decrease ordering of daily labs using 3 QI strategies in our community 4‐hospital health system.
METHODS
Study Participants
This activity was undertaken as a QI initiative by Swedish Hospital Medicine (SHM), a 53‐provider employed hospitalist group that staffs a total of 1420 beds across 4 inpatient facilities. SHM has a longstanding record of working together as a team on QI projects.
An informal preliminary audit of our common lab ordering by a member of the study team revealed multiple examples of labs ordered every day without medical‐record evidence of intervention or management decisions being made based on the results. This preliminary activity raised the notion within the hospitalist group that this was a topic ripe for intervention and improvement. Four common labs, CBC, BMP, nutrition panel (called TPN 2 in our system, consisting of a BMP and magnesium and phosphorus) and comprehensive metabolic panel (BMP and liver function tests), formed the bulk of the repetitively ordered labs and were the focus of our activity. We excluded prothrombin time/International Normalized Ratio, as it was less clear that obtaining these daily clearly represented waste. We then reviewed medical literature for successful QI strategies and chose academic detailing, transparent display of data, and audit and feedback as our QI tactics.[29]
Using data from our electronic medical record, we chose a convenience preintervention period of 10 months for our baseline data. We allowed for a 2‐month wash‐in period in August 2013, and a convenience period of 7 months was chosen as the intervention period.
Intervention
An introductory email was sent out in mid‐August 2013 to all hospitalist providers describing the waste and potential harm to patients associated with unnecessary common blood tests, in particular those ordered as daily. The email recommended 2 changes: (1) immediate cessation of the practice of ordering common labs as daily, in an open, unending manner and (2) assessing the need for common labs in the next 24 hours, and ordering based on that need, but no further into the future.
Hospitalist providers were additionally informed that the number of common labs ordered daily would be tracked prospectively, with monthly reporting of individual provider ordering. In addition, the 5 members of the hospitalist team who most frequently ordered common labs as daily during January 2013 to March 2013 were sent individual emails informing them of their top‐5 position.
During the 7‐month intervention period, a monthly email was sent to all members of the hospitalist team with 4 basic components: (1) reiteration of the recommendations and reasoning stated in the original email; (2) a list of all members of the hospitalist team and the corresponding frequency of common labs ordered as daily (open ended) per provider for the month; (3) a recommendation to discontinue any common labs ordered as daily; and (4) at least 1 example of a patient cared for during the month by the hospitalist team, who had at least 1 common lab ordered for at least 5 days in a row, with no mention of the results in the progress notes and no apparent contribution to the management of the medical conditions for which the patient was being treated.
The change in number of tests ordered during the intervention was not shared with the team until early January 2014.
Data Elements and Endpoints
Number of common labs ordered as daily, and the total number of common labs per hospital‐day, ordered by any frequency, on hospitalist patients were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Hospitalist patients were defined as those both admitted and discharged by a hospitalist provider. We chose to compare the 10 months prior to the intervention with the 7 months during the intervention, allowing 1 month as the intervention wash‐in period. No other interventions related to lab ordering occurred during the study period. Additional variables collected included duration of hospitalization, mortality, readmission, and transfusion data. Consistency of providers in the preintervention and intervention period was high. Two providers were included in some of the preintervention data, but were not included in the intervention data, as they both left for other positions. Otherwise, all other providers in the data were consistent between the 2 time periods.
The primary endpoint was chosen a priori as the total number of common labs ordered per hospital‐day. Additionally, we identified a priori potential confounders, including age, sex, and primary discharge diagnosis, as captured by the all‐patient refined diagnosis‐related group (APR‐DRG, hereafter DRG). DRG was chosen as a clinical risk adjustment variable because there does not exist an established method to model the effects of clinical conditions on the propensity to obtain labs, the primary endpoint. Many models used for risk adjustment in patient quality reporting use hospital mortality as the primary endpoint, not the need for laboratory testing.[30, 31] As our primary endpoint was common labs and not mortality, we chose DRG as the best single variable to model changes in the clinical case mix that might affect the number of common labs.
Secondary endpoints were also determined a priori. Out of desire to assess the patient safety implications of an intervention targeting decreased monitoring, we included hospital mortality, duration of hospitalization, and readmission as safety variables. Two secondary endpoints were obtained as possible additional efficacy endpoints to test the hypothesis that the intervention might be associated with a reduction in transfusion burden: red blood cell transfusion and transfusion volume. We also tracked the frequency with which providers ordered common labs as daily in the baseline and intervention periods, as this was the behavior targeted by the interventions.
Costs to the hospital to produce the lab studies were also considered as a secondary endpoint. Median hospital costs were obtained from the first‐quarter, 2013 Premier dataset, a national dataset of hospital costs (basic metabolic panel $14.69, complete blood count $11.68, comprehensive metabolic panel $18.66). Of note, the Premier data did not include cost data on what our institution calls a TPN 2, and BMP cost was used as a substitute, given the overlap of the 2 tests' components and a desire to conservatively estimate the effects on cost to produce. Additionally, we factored in estimate of hospitalist and analyst time at $150/hour and $75/hour, respectively, to conduct that data abstraction and analysis and to manage the program. We did not formally factor in other costs, including electronic medical record acquisition costs.
Statistical Analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the 2 cohorts. To test our primary hypothesis about the association between cohort membership and number of common labs per patient day, a clustered multivariable linear regression model was constructed to adjust for the a priori identified potential confounders, including sex, age, and principle discharge diagnosis. Each DRG was entered as a categorical variable in the model. Clustering was employed to account for correlation of lab ordering behavior by a given hospitalist. Separate clustered multivariable models were constructed to test the association between cohort and secondary outcomes, including duration of hospitalization, readmission, mortality, transfusion frequency, and transfusion volume using the same potential confounders. All P values were 2‐sided, and a P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted with Stata 11.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). The study was reviewed by the Swedish Health Services Clinical Research Center and determined to be nonhuman subjects research.
RESULTS
Patient Characteristics
Patient characteristics in the before and after cohorts are shown in Table 1. Both proportion of male sex (44.9% vs 44.9%, P=1.0) and the mean age (64.6 vs 64.8 years, P=0.5) did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts. Interestingly, there was a significant change in the distribution of DRGs between the 2 cohorts, with each of the top 10 DRGs becoming more common in the intervention cohort. For example, the percentage of patients with sepsis or severe sepsis, DRGs 871 and 872, increased by 2.2% (8.2% vs 10.4%, P<0.01).
Baseline, n=7832 | Intervention, n=5759 | P Valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Age, y, mean (SD) | 64.6 (19.6) | 64.8 | 0.5 |
Male, n (%) | 3,514 (44.9) | 2,585 (44.9) | 1.0 |
Primary discharge diagnosis, DRG no., name, n (%)b | |||
871 and 872, severe sepsis | 641 (8.2) | 599 (10.4) | <0.01 |
885, psychoses | 72 (0.9) | 141 (2.4) | <0.01 |
392, esophagitis, gastroenteritis and miscellaneous intestinal disorders | 171 (2.2) | 225 (3.9) | <0.01 |
313, chest pain | 114 (1.5) | 123 (2.1) | <0.01 |
378, gastrointestinal bleed | 100 (1.3) | 117 (2.0) | <0.01 |
291, congestive heart failure and shock | 83 (1.1) | 101 (1.8) | <0.01 |
189, pulmonary edema and respiratory failure | 69 (0.9) | 112 (1.9) | <0.01 |
312, syncope and collapse | 82 (1.0) | 119 (2.1) | <0.01 |
64, intracranial hemorrhage or cerebral infarction | 49 (0.6) | 54 (0.9) | 0.04 |
603, cellulitis | 96 (1.2) | 94 (1.6) | 0.05 |
Primary Endpoint
In the unadjusted comparison, 3 of the 4 common labs showed a similar decrease in the intervention cohort from the baseline (Table 2). For example, the mean number of CBCs ordered per patient‐day decreased by 0.15 labs per patient day (1.06 vs 0.91, P<0.01). The total number of common labs ordered per patient‐day decreased by 0.30 labs per patient‐day (2.06 vs 1.76, P<0.01) in the unadjusted analysis (Figure 1 and Table 2). Part of our hypothesis was that decreasing the number of labs that were ordered as daily, in an open‐ended manner, would likely decrease the number of common labs obtained per day. We found that the number of labs ordered as daily decreased by 0.71 labs per patient‐day (0.872.90 vs 0.161.01, P<0.01), an 81.6% decrease from the preintervention time period.
Baseline | Intervention | P Valuea | |
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Complete blood count, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 1.06 (0.76) | 0.91 (0.75) | <0.01 |
Basic metabolic panel, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 0.68 (0.71) | 0.55 (0.60) | <0.01 |
Nutrition panel, mean (SD)b | 0.06 (0.24) | 0.07 (0.32) | 0.01 |
Comprehensive metabolic panel, per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 0.27 (0.49) | 0.23 (0.46) | <0.01 |
Total no. of basic labs ordered per patient‐day, mean (SD) | 2.06 (1.40) | 1.76 (1.37) | <0.01 |
Transfused, n (%) | 414 (5.3) | 268 (4.7) | 0.1 |
Transfused volume, mL, mean (SD) | 847.3 (644.3) | 744.9 (472.0) | 0.02 |
Length of stay, days, mean (SD) | 3.79 (4.58) | 3.81 (4.50) | 0.7 |
Readmitted, n (%) | 1049 (13.3) | 733 (12.7) | 0.3 |
Died, n (%) | 173 (2.2) | 104 (1.8) | 0.1 |

In our multivariable regression model, after adjusting for sex, age, and the primary reason for admission as captured by DRG, the number of common labs ordered per day was reduced by 0.22 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.11; P<0.01). This represents a 10.7% reduction in common labs ordered per patient day.
Secondary Endpoints
Table 2 shows secondary outcomes of the study. Patient safety endpoints were not changed in unadjusted analyses. For example, the hospital length of stay in number of days was similar in both the baseline and intervention cohorts (3.784.58 vs 3.814.50, P=0.7). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the hospital mortality rate during the intervention period by 0.4% (2.2% vs 1.8%, P=0.1). No significant differences were found when the multivariable model was rerun for each of the 3 secondary endpoints individually, readmissions, mortality, and length of stay.
Two secondary efficacy endpoints were also evaluated. The percentage of patients receiving transfusions did not decrease in either the unadjusted or adjusted analysis. However, the volume of blood transfused per patient who received a transfusion decreased by 91.9 mL in the bivariate analysis (836.8 mL621.4 mL vs 744.9 mL472.0 mL; P=0.03) (Table 2). The decrease, however, was not significant in the multivariable model (127.2 mL; 95% CI, 257.9 to 3.6; P=0.06).
Cost Data
Based on the Premier estimate of the cost to the hospital to perform the common lab tests, the intervention likely decreased direct costs by $16.19 per patient (95% CI, $12.95 to $19.43). The cost saving was decreased by the expense of the intervention, which is estimated to be $8000 and was driven by hospitalist and analyst time. Based on the patient volume in our health system, and factoring in the cost of implementation, we estimate that this intervention resulted in annualized savings of $151,682 (95% CI, $119,746 to $187,618).
DISCUSSION
Ordering common labs daily is a routine practice among providers at many institutions. In fact, at our institution, prior to the intervention, 42% of all common labs were ordered as daily, meaning they were obtained each day without regard to the previous value or the patient's clinical condition. The practice is one of convenience or habit, and many times not clinically indicated.[5, 32]
We observed a significant reduction in the number of common labs ordered as daily, and more importantly, the total number of common labs in the intervention period. The rapid change in provider behavior is notable and likely due to several factors. First, there was a general sentiment among the hospitalists in the merits of the project. Second, there may have been an aversion to the display of lower performance relative to peers in the monthly e‐mails. Third, and perhaps most importantly, our hospitalist team had worked together for many years on projects like this, creating a culture of QI and willingness to change practice patterns in response to data.[33]
Concern about decreasing waste and increasing the value of healthcare abound, particularly in the United States.[1] Decreasing the cost to produce equivalent or improved health outcomes for a given episode of care has been proposed as a way to improve value.[34] This intervention results in modest waste reduction, the benefits of which are readily apparent in a DRG‐based reimbursement model, where the hospital realizes any saving in the cost of producing a hospital stay, as well as in a total cost of care environment, such as could be found in an Accountable Care Organization.
The previous work in the field of lab reduction has all been performed at university‐affiliated academic institutions. We demonstrated that the QI tactics described in the literature can be successfully employed in a community‐based hospitalist practice. This has broad applicability to increasing the value of healthcare and could serve as a model for future community‐based hospitalist QI projects.
The study has several limitations. First, the length of follow‐up is only 7 months, and although there was rapid and effective adoption of the intervention, provider behavior may regress to previous practice patterns over time. Second, the simple before‐after nature of our trial design raises the possibility that environmental influences exist and that changes in ordering behavior may have been the result of something other than the intervention. Most notably, the Choosing Wisely recommendation for hospitalists was published in September of 2013, coinciding with our intervention period.[22] The reduction in number of labs ordered may have been a partial result of these recommendations. Third, the 2 cohorts included different times of the year based on the distribution of DRGs, which likely had a different composition of diagnoses being treated. To address this we adjusted for DRG, but there may have been some residual confounding, as some diagnoses may be managed with more laboratory tests than others in a way that was not fully adjusted for in our model. Fourth, the intervention was made possible because of the substantial and ongoing investments that our health system has made in our electronic medical record and data analytics capability. The variability of these resources across institutions limits generalizability. Fifth, although we used the QI tools that were described, we did not do a formal process map or utilize other Lean or Six Sigma tools. As the healthcare industry continues on its journey to high reliability, these use tools will hopefully become more widespread. We demonstrated that even with these simple tactics, significant progress can be made.
Finally, there exists a concern that decreasing regular laboratory monitoring might be associated with undetected worsening in the patient's clinical status. We did not observe any significant adverse effects on coarse measures of clinical performance, including length of stay, readmission rate, or mortality. However, we did not collect data on all clinical parameters, and it is possible that there could have been an undetected effect on incident renal failure or hemodialysis or intensive care unit transfer. Other studies on this type of intervention have evaluated some of these possible adverse outcomes and have not noted an association.[12, 15, 18, 20, 22] Future studies should evaluate harms associated with implementation of Choosing Wisely and other interventions targeted at waste reduction. Future work is also needed to disseminate more formal and rigorous QI tools and methodologies.
CONCLUSION
We implemented a multifaceted QI intervention including provider education, transparent display of data, and audit and feedback that was associated with a significant reduction in the number of common labs ordered in a large community‐based hospitalist group, without evidence of harm. Further study is needed to understand how hospitalist groups can optimally decrease waste in healthcare.
Disclosures
This work was performed at the Swedish Health System, Seattle, Washington. Dr. Corson served as primary author, designed the study protocol, obtained the data, analyzed all the data and wrote the manuscript and its revisions, and approved the final version of the manuscript. He attests that no undisclosed authors contributed to the manuscript. Dr. Fan designed the study protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Mr. White reviewed the study protocol, obtained the study data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Sean D. Sullivan, PhD, designed the study protocol, obtained study data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Asakura designed the study protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Myint reviewed the study protocol and data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Dr. Dale designed the study protocol, analyzed the data, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
- Eliminating “waste” in health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–1516. .
- The U.S. health system in perspective: a comparison of twelve industrialized nations. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2011;16:1–14. .
- Is the defensive use of diagnostic tests good for patients, or bad? Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):19–28. , .
- Physician characteristics and organizational factors influencing use of ambulatory tests. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:401–415. , .
- Pilot Group of the Appropriate Utilization of Laboratory Tests (REDCONLAB) Working Group. Differences in laboratory requesting patterns in emergency department in Spain. Ann Clin Biochem. 2013;50:353–359. , , ;
- Hospital‐acquired anemia. J Med Assoc Thail. 2006;89(1):63–67. , .
- Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):520–524. , , , , .
- Phlebotomy for diagnostic laboratory tests in adults. Pattern of use and effect on transfusion requirements. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(19):1233–1235. , .
- Diagnostic blood loss from phlebotomy and hospital‐acquired anemia during acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1646–1653. , , , et al.
- Hospital‐acquired anemia: prevalence, outcomes, and healthcare implications. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):506–512. , , , et al.
- Laboratory phlebotomy. College of American Pathologists Q‐Probe study of patient satisfaction and complications in 23,783 patients. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;115:867–872. , , .
- A cost‐effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university‐associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73(5):787–794. , , , et al.
- Inappropriate use of laboratory services: long term combined approach to modify request patterns. BMJ. 1990;301(6764):1305–1307. , .
- Effect of a controlled feedback intervention on laboratory test ordering by community physicians. Clin Chem. 2004;50(2):321–326. , .
- An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2005;17(3):243–248. , , , , .
- Surgical vampires and rising health care expenditure. Arch Surg. 2011;146(5):524–527. .
- Trial of strategy for reducing the use of laboratory tests. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6524):883–885. , , , et al.
- Improving house staff ordering of three common laboratory tests. Reductions in test ordering need not result in underutilization. Med Care. 1987;25(10):928–935. , , , et al.
- Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(2):200–206. , , , et al.
- Improving patient care the impact of peer management on test‐ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(3):196–204. , , , et al.
- The laboratory test justified. An effective means to reduce routine laboratory testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 1985;86(6):756–759. , , .
- Choosing wisely in adult hospital medicine: five opportunities for improved healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):486–492. , , , et al.
- Quality Improvement in the intensive care unit. In: Scales DC, Rubenfeld GD, eds. The Organization of Critical Care. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2014:279. .
- Intensive care unit quality improvement: a “how‐to” guide for the interdisciplinary team. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:211–218. , , , et al.
- Navigating adaptive challenges in quality improvement. BMJ Qual Safety. 2011;20(7):560–563. .
- A multifaceted intervention for quality improvement in a network of intensive care units: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;305:363–372. , , , et al.
- O'Neill SM. How do quality improvement interventions succeed? Archetypes of success and failure. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD282.html. Published 2011.
- Effect of a multifaceted intervention on use of evidence‐based therapies in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Brazil: the BRIDGE‐ACS randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:2041–2049. , , , et al.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259. , , , et al.
- Impact of the present‐on‐admission indicator on hospital quality measurement: experience with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Inpatient Quality Indicators. Med Care. 2008;46:112–119. , , , .
- Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality. JAMA. 2007;297:71–76. , , , et al.
- Primary care use of laboratory tests in Spain: measurement through appropriateness indicators. Clin Lab. 2014;60(3):483–490. , , , .
- What distinguishes top‐performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? a qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):384–390. , , , et al.
- What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–2481. .
- Eliminating “waste” in health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513–1516. .
- The U.S. health system in perspective: a comparison of twelve industrialized nations. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2011;16:1–14. .
- Is the defensive use of diagnostic tests good for patients, or bad? Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(1):19–28. , .
- Physician characteristics and organizational factors influencing use of ambulatory tests. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:401–415. , .
- Pilot Group of the Appropriate Utilization of Laboratory Tests (REDCONLAB) Working Group. Differences in laboratory requesting patterns in emergency department in Spain. Ann Clin Biochem. 2013;50:353–359. , , ;
- Hospital‐acquired anemia. J Med Assoc Thail. 2006;89(1):63–67. , .
- Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(6):520–524. , , , , .
- Phlebotomy for diagnostic laboratory tests in adults. Pattern of use and effect on transfusion requirements. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(19):1233–1235. , .
- Diagnostic blood loss from phlebotomy and hospital‐acquired anemia during acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(18):1646–1653. , , , et al.
- Hospital‐acquired anemia: prevalence, outcomes, and healthcare implications. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):506–512. , , , et al.
- Laboratory phlebotomy. College of American Pathologists Q‐Probe study of patient satisfaction and complications in 23,783 patients. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1991;115:867–872. , , .
- A cost‐effective method for reducing the volume of laboratory tests in a university‐associated teaching hospital. Mt Sinai J Med. 2006;73(5):787–794. , , , et al.
- Inappropriate use of laboratory services: long term combined approach to modify request patterns. BMJ. 1990;301(6764):1305–1307. , .
- Effect of a controlled feedback intervention on laboratory test ordering by community physicians. Clin Chem. 2004;50(2):321–326. , .
- An administrative intervention to improve the utilization of laboratory tests within a university hospital. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2005;17(3):243–248. , , , , .
- Surgical vampires and rising health care expenditure. Arch Surg. 2011;146(5):524–527. .
- Trial of strategy for reducing the use of laboratory tests. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;292(6524):883–885. , , , et al.
- Improving house staff ordering of three common laboratory tests. Reductions in test ordering need not result in underutilization. Med Care. 1987;25(10):928–935. , , , et al.
- Reducing unnecessary inpatient laboratory testing in a teaching hospital. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(2):200–206. , , , et al.
- Improving patient care the impact of peer management on test‐ordering behavior. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(3):196–204. , , , et al.
- The laboratory test justified. An effective means to reduce routine laboratory testing. Am J Clin Pathol. 1985;86(6):756–759. , , .
- Choosing wisely in adult hospital medicine: five opportunities for improved healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(9):486–492. , , , et al.
- Quality Improvement in the intensive care unit. In: Scales DC, Rubenfeld GD, eds. The Organization of Critical Care. New York, NY: Humana Press; 2014:279. .
- Intensive care unit quality improvement: a “how‐to” guide for the interdisciplinary team. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:211–218. , , , et al.
- Navigating adaptive challenges in quality improvement. BMJ Qual Safety. 2011;20(7):560–563. .
- A multifaceted intervention for quality improvement in a network of intensive care units: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;305:363–372. , , , et al.
- O'Neill SM. How do quality improvement interventions succeed? Archetypes of success and failure. Available at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD282.html. Published 2011.
- Effect of a multifaceted intervention on use of evidence‐based therapies in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Brazil: the BRIDGE‐ACS randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307:2041–2049. , , , et al.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259. , , , et al.
- Impact of the present‐on‐admission indicator on hospital quality measurement: experience with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Inpatient Quality Indicators. Med Care. 2008;46:112–119. , , , .
- Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality. JAMA. 2007;297:71–76. , , , et al.
- Primary care use of laboratory tests in Spain: measurement through appropriateness indicators. Clin Lab. 2014;60(3):483–490. , , , .
- What distinguishes top‐performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? a qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):384–390. , , , et al.
- What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–2481. .
Group traces clonal evolution of B-ALL
In tracing the clonal evolution of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) from diagnosis to relapse, researchers discovered that clonal diversity is comparable in both states.
They also identified mutations associated with B-ALL relapse and found that clonal survival is not dependent upon mutation burden.
In most of the cases the researchers analyzed, a single, minor clone survived therapy, acquired additional mutations, and drove disease relapse.
Jinghui Zhang, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and her colleagues recounted these findings in Nature Communications.
The researchers performed deep, whole-exome sequencing on cell samples from 20 young patients (ages 2 to 19) with relapsed B-ALL. The samples were collected at diagnosis, remission, and relapse.
“[W]e wanted to find out the underlying mechanism leading to cancer relapse,” Dr Zhang said. “When the cancer recurs, is it a completely different cancer, or is it an extension, or change, arising from pre-existing cancer?”
The researchers were able to detect the mutations in both the “rising” and “falling” clones—those that survive therapy and those that don’t—at the different disease stages and pinpoint the mutations that drove the leukemia.
Seven genes were highly likely to be mutated in relapsed disease—NT5C2, CREBBP, WHSC1, TP53, USH2A, NRAS, and IKZF1.
The researchers also characterized how diverse those mutations were at diagnosis and relapse. They found that B-ALL cells were mutating just as wildly and diversely in one phase of disease as in the other.
“This finding was interesting, because most people think that the clone that has the most mutations is more likely to survive therapy and evolve, but that doesn’t seem to be the case,” Dr Zhang said.
In most cases, relapse was driven by a minor subclone that had survived therapy and was present at an extremely low level. The researchers said this finding suggests a need to change the way we assess patients after treatment to determine the likelihood of relapse.
“When we are analyzing for the level of minimum residual disease in monitoring remission in patients, we should not only pay attention to the mutations in the predominant clone,” Dr Zhang said. “We should also be tracking what kinds of mutations exist in the minor subclones.”
In tracing the clonal evolution of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) from diagnosis to relapse, researchers discovered that clonal diversity is comparable in both states.
They also identified mutations associated with B-ALL relapse and found that clonal survival is not dependent upon mutation burden.
In most of the cases the researchers analyzed, a single, minor clone survived therapy, acquired additional mutations, and drove disease relapse.
Jinghui Zhang, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and her colleagues recounted these findings in Nature Communications.
The researchers performed deep, whole-exome sequencing on cell samples from 20 young patients (ages 2 to 19) with relapsed B-ALL. The samples were collected at diagnosis, remission, and relapse.
“[W]e wanted to find out the underlying mechanism leading to cancer relapse,” Dr Zhang said. “When the cancer recurs, is it a completely different cancer, or is it an extension, or change, arising from pre-existing cancer?”
The researchers were able to detect the mutations in both the “rising” and “falling” clones—those that survive therapy and those that don’t—at the different disease stages and pinpoint the mutations that drove the leukemia.
Seven genes were highly likely to be mutated in relapsed disease—NT5C2, CREBBP, WHSC1, TP53, USH2A, NRAS, and IKZF1.
The researchers also characterized how diverse those mutations were at diagnosis and relapse. They found that B-ALL cells were mutating just as wildly and diversely in one phase of disease as in the other.
“This finding was interesting, because most people think that the clone that has the most mutations is more likely to survive therapy and evolve, but that doesn’t seem to be the case,” Dr Zhang said.
In most cases, relapse was driven by a minor subclone that had survived therapy and was present at an extremely low level. The researchers said this finding suggests a need to change the way we assess patients after treatment to determine the likelihood of relapse.
“When we are analyzing for the level of minimum residual disease in monitoring remission in patients, we should not only pay attention to the mutations in the predominant clone,” Dr Zhang said. “We should also be tracking what kinds of mutations exist in the minor subclones.”
In tracing the clonal evolution of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) from diagnosis to relapse, researchers discovered that clonal diversity is comparable in both states.
They also identified mutations associated with B-ALL relapse and found that clonal survival is not dependent upon mutation burden.
In most of the cases the researchers analyzed, a single, minor clone survived therapy, acquired additional mutations, and drove disease relapse.
Jinghui Zhang, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, and her colleagues recounted these findings in Nature Communications.
The researchers performed deep, whole-exome sequencing on cell samples from 20 young patients (ages 2 to 19) with relapsed B-ALL. The samples were collected at diagnosis, remission, and relapse.
“[W]e wanted to find out the underlying mechanism leading to cancer relapse,” Dr Zhang said. “When the cancer recurs, is it a completely different cancer, or is it an extension, or change, arising from pre-existing cancer?”
The researchers were able to detect the mutations in both the “rising” and “falling” clones—those that survive therapy and those that don’t—at the different disease stages and pinpoint the mutations that drove the leukemia.
Seven genes were highly likely to be mutated in relapsed disease—NT5C2, CREBBP, WHSC1, TP53, USH2A, NRAS, and IKZF1.
The researchers also characterized how diverse those mutations were at diagnosis and relapse. They found that B-ALL cells were mutating just as wildly and diversely in one phase of disease as in the other.
“This finding was interesting, because most people think that the clone that has the most mutations is more likely to survive therapy and evolve, but that doesn’t seem to be the case,” Dr Zhang said.
In most cases, relapse was driven by a minor subclone that had survived therapy and was present at an extremely low level. The researchers said this finding suggests a need to change the way we assess patients after treatment to determine the likelihood of relapse.
“When we are analyzing for the level of minimum residual disease in monitoring remission in patients, we should not only pay attention to the mutations in the predominant clone,” Dr Zhang said. “We should also be tracking what kinds of mutations exist in the minor subclones.”