The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to include treatment of heart failure across the full spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) – including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.

In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.

In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.

The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.

The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to include treatment of heart failure across the full spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) – including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.

In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.

In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.

The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.

The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) to include treatment of heart failure across the full spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) – including HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was previously approved in the United States for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

The expanded indication is based on data from the phase 3 DELIVER trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with HF regardless of left ventricular function.

In the trial, which included more than 6,200 patients, dapagliflozin led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful early reduction in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death or worsening HF for patients with HFmrEF or HFpEFF.

In addition, results of a pooled analysis of the DAPA-HF and DELIVER phase 3 trials showed a consistent benefit from dapagliflozin treatment in significantly reducing the combined endpoint of CV death or HF hospitalization across the range of LVEF.

The European Commission expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include HF across the full spectrum of LVEF in February.

The SGLT2 inhibitor is also approved for use by patients with chronic kidney disease. It was first approved in 2014 to improve glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Try practicing inpatient medicine without nurses.

You can’t.

In a world where doctors get top billing, nurses are the unsung heroes that really make it all happen. We blow in and out of the rooms, write notes, check results and vitals, then move on to the next person.

But the nurses are the ones who actually make this all happen. And, amazingly, can do all that work with a smile.

But in our current postpandemic world, we’re facing a serious shortage. A recent survey of registered nurses found that only 15% of hospital nurses were planning on being there in 1 year. Thirty percent said they were planning on changing careers entirely in the aftermath of the pandemic. Their job satisfaction scores have dropped 15% from 2019 to 2023. Their stress scores, and concerns that the job is affecting their health, have increased 15%-20%.

The problem reflects a combination of things intersecting at a bad time: Staffing shortages resulting in more patients per nurse, hospital administrators cutting corners on staffing and pay, and the ongoing state of incivility.

The last one is a particularly new issue. Difficult patients and their families are nothing new. We all encounter them, and learn to deal with them in our own way. It’s part of the territory.

But since 2020 it’s climbed to a new-level of in-your-face confrontation, rudeness, and aggression, sometimes leading to violence. Physical attacks on people in all jobs have increased, but health care workers are five times more likely to encounter workplace violence than any other field.

Underpaid, overworked, and a sitting duck for violence. Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

All of this is coming at a time when a whole generation of nurses is retiring, another generation is starting to reach an age of needing more health care, and nursing schools are short on teaching staff, limiting the number of new people that can be trained. Nursing education, like medical school, isn’t a place to cut corners (neither is care, obviously).

These days we toss the word “burnout” around to the point that it’s become almost meaningless, but to those affected by it, the consequences are quite real. And when it causes a loss of staff and impairs the ability of all to provide quality medical care, it quickly becomes everyone’s problem.

Finding solutions for such things isn’t a can you just kick down the road, as governmental agencies have always been so good at doing. These are things that have real-world consequences for all involved, and solutions need to involve private, public, and educational sectors working together.

I don’t have any ideas, but I hope the people who can change this will sit down and work some out.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Try practicing inpatient medicine without nurses.

You can’t.

In a world where doctors get top billing, nurses are the unsung heroes that really make it all happen. We blow in and out of the rooms, write notes, check results and vitals, then move on to the next person.

But the nurses are the ones who actually make this all happen. And, amazingly, can do all that work with a smile.

But in our current postpandemic world, we’re facing a serious shortage. A recent survey of registered nurses found that only 15% of hospital nurses were planning on being there in 1 year. Thirty percent said they were planning on changing careers entirely in the aftermath of the pandemic. Their job satisfaction scores have dropped 15% from 2019 to 2023. Their stress scores, and concerns that the job is affecting their health, have increased 15%-20%.

The problem reflects a combination of things intersecting at a bad time: Staffing shortages resulting in more patients per nurse, hospital administrators cutting corners on staffing and pay, and the ongoing state of incivility.

The last one is a particularly new issue. Difficult patients and their families are nothing new. We all encounter them, and learn to deal with them in our own way. It’s part of the territory.

But since 2020 it’s climbed to a new-level of in-your-face confrontation, rudeness, and aggression, sometimes leading to violence. Physical attacks on people in all jobs have increased, but health care workers are five times more likely to encounter workplace violence than any other field.

Underpaid, overworked, and a sitting duck for violence. Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

All of this is coming at a time when a whole generation of nurses is retiring, another generation is starting to reach an age of needing more health care, and nursing schools are short on teaching staff, limiting the number of new people that can be trained. Nursing education, like medical school, isn’t a place to cut corners (neither is care, obviously).

These days we toss the word “burnout” around to the point that it’s become almost meaningless, but to those affected by it, the consequences are quite real. And when it causes a loss of staff and impairs the ability of all to provide quality medical care, it quickly becomes everyone’s problem.

Finding solutions for such things isn’t a can you just kick down the road, as governmental agencies have always been so good at doing. These are things that have real-world consequences for all involved, and solutions need to involve private, public, and educational sectors working together.

I don’t have any ideas, but I hope the people who can change this will sit down and work some out.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Try practicing inpatient medicine without nurses.

You can’t.

In a world where doctors get top billing, nurses are the unsung heroes that really make it all happen. We blow in and out of the rooms, write notes, check results and vitals, then move on to the next person.

But the nurses are the ones who actually make this all happen. And, amazingly, can do all that work with a smile.

But in our current postpandemic world, we’re facing a serious shortage. A recent survey of registered nurses found that only 15% of hospital nurses were planning on being there in 1 year. Thirty percent said they were planning on changing careers entirely in the aftermath of the pandemic. Their job satisfaction scores have dropped 15% from 2019 to 2023. Their stress scores, and concerns that the job is affecting their health, have increased 15%-20%.

The problem reflects a combination of things intersecting at a bad time: Staffing shortages resulting in more patients per nurse, hospital administrators cutting corners on staffing and pay, and the ongoing state of incivility.

The last one is a particularly new issue. Difficult patients and their families are nothing new. We all encounter them, and learn to deal with them in our own way. It’s part of the territory.

But since 2020 it’s climbed to a new-level of in-your-face confrontation, rudeness, and aggression, sometimes leading to violence. Physical attacks on people in all jobs have increased, but health care workers are five times more likely to encounter workplace violence than any other field.

Underpaid, overworked, and a sitting duck for violence. Can you blame people for looking elsewhere?

All of this is coming at a time when a whole generation of nurses is retiring, another generation is starting to reach an age of needing more health care, and nursing schools are short on teaching staff, limiting the number of new people that can be trained. Nursing education, like medical school, isn’t a place to cut corners (neither is care, obviously).

These days we toss the word “burnout” around to the point that it’s become almost meaningless, but to those affected by it, the consequences are quite real. And when it causes a loss of staff and impairs the ability of all to provide quality medical care, it quickly becomes everyone’s problem.

Finding solutions for such things isn’t a can you just kick down the road, as governmental agencies have always been so good at doing. These are things that have real-world consequences for all involved, and solutions need to involve private, public, and educational sectors working together.

I don’t have any ideas, but I hope the people who can change this will sit down and work some out.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

CHICAGO – It’s been 125 years since the founding of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). It’s gone from a small organization in which gastroenterology wasn’t even a known medical specialty, to an organization that grants millions of dollars in research funding each year.

University of California San Diego

Congratulating the organization on its 125th anniversary, AGA president John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, reflected on its history and outlined many accomplishments and challenges. He spoke with optimism about gastroenterology’s future during his presidential address on May 8 at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) meeting in Chicago.

“I congratulate the AGA on its quasquicentennial, or 125th anniversary,” said Dr. Carethers, who is distinguished professor of medicine and vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California, San Diego.

The AGA was founded in 1897 by Detroit-based physician Charles Aaron, MD. His passion was gastroenterology, but at that point, it wasn’t an established medical discipline. Dr. Aaron, Max Einhorn, MD, and 8 other colleagues formed the American Gastroenterological Association. Today, with nearly 16,000 members, the organization has become a driving force in improving the care of patients with gastrointestinal conditions.

Among AGA’s accomplishments since its founding: In 1940, the American Board of Internal Medicine certified gastroenterology as a subspecialty. Three years later, the first issue of Gastroenterology, the AGA’s flagship journal, was published. And, in 1971, the very first Digestive Disease Week® meeting took place.

In terms of medical advances that have been made since those early years, the list is vast: From the description of ileitis in 1932 by Burril B. Crohn, MD, in 1932 to the discovery of the hepatitis B surface antigen in 1965 and the more recent discovery of germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes as a cause of Lynch syndrome.

Dr. Carethers outlined goals for the future, including building a leadership team that is “reflective of our practice here in the United States,” Dr. Carethers said. Creating a culturally and gender diverse leadership team will only strengthen the organization and the practice of gastroenterology. The AGA’s first female president, Sarah Jordan, MD, was named in 1942, and since then, the AGA has been led by women and men from different ethnic backgrounds, including himself, who is AGA’s first president of African American heritage.

The AGA has committed to a number of diversity and equity objectives, including the AGA Equity Project, an initiative launched in 2020 whose goal is to achieve equity and eradicate disparities in digestive diseases with a focus on justice and equity, research and funding, workforce and leadership, recognition of the achievements of people of color, unconscious bias, and engagement with early career members.

“I am not only excited about the diversity and equity objectives within our specialty ... but also the innovation and things to come for our specialty,” Dr. Carethers said.

Securing funding for early-stage innovations in medicine can be difficult across medical disciplines, including gastroenterology. So, last year, the AGA, with Varia Ventures, launched the GI Opportunity Fund 1 to support early-stage GI-based companies. The goal is to raise $25 million for the initial fund. Through the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology and the AGA Tech Summit, early-stage companies may have new funding opportunities.

And, through the AGA Research Foundation, the organization will continue to support clinical research. Last year, $2.6 million in grants were awarded to investigators.

Dr. Carethers is a board director at Avantor, a life sciences supply company.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – It’s been 125 years since the founding of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). It’s gone from a small organization in which gastroenterology wasn’t even a known medical specialty, to an organization that grants millions of dollars in research funding each year.

University of California San Diego

Congratulating the organization on its 125th anniversary, AGA president John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, reflected on its history and outlined many accomplishments and challenges. He spoke with optimism about gastroenterology’s future during his presidential address on May 8 at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) meeting in Chicago.

“I congratulate the AGA on its quasquicentennial, or 125th anniversary,” said Dr. Carethers, who is distinguished professor of medicine and vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California, San Diego.

The AGA was founded in 1897 by Detroit-based physician Charles Aaron, MD. His passion was gastroenterology, but at that point, it wasn’t an established medical discipline. Dr. Aaron, Max Einhorn, MD, and 8 other colleagues formed the American Gastroenterological Association. Today, with nearly 16,000 members, the organization has become a driving force in improving the care of patients with gastrointestinal conditions.

Among AGA’s accomplishments since its founding: In 1940, the American Board of Internal Medicine certified gastroenterology as a subspecialty. Three years later, the first issue of Gastroenterology, the AGA’s flagship journal, was published. And, in 1971, the very first Digestive Disease Week® meeting took place.

In terms of medical advances that have been made since those early years, the list is vast: From the description of ileitis in 1932 by Burril B. Crohn, MD, in 1932 to the discovery of the hepatitis B surface antigen in 1965 and the more recent discovery of germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes as a cause of Lynch syndrome.

Dr. Carethers outlined goals for the future, including building a leadership team that is “reflective of our practice here in the United States,” Dr. Carethers said. Creating a culturally and gender diverse leadership team will only strengthen the organization and the practice of gastroenterology. The AGA’s first female president, Sarah Jordan, MD, was named in 1942, and since then, the AGA has been led by women and men from different ethnic backgrounds, including himself, who is AGA’s first president of African American heritage.

The AGA has committed to a number of diversity and equity objectives, including the AGA Equity Project, an initiative launched in 2020 whose goal is to achieve equity and eradicate disparities in digestive diseases with a focus on justice and equity, research and funding, workforce and leadership, recognition of the achievements of people of color, unconscious bias, and engagement with early career members.

“I am not only excited about the diversity and equity objectives within our specialty ... but also the innovation and things to come for our specialty,” Dr. Carethers said.

Securing funding for early-stage innovations in medicine can be difficult across medical disciplines, including gastroenterology. So, last year, the AGA, with Varia Ventures, launched the GI Opportunity Fund 1 to support early-stage GI-based companies. The goal is to raise $25 million for the initial fund. Through the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology and the AGA Tech Summit, early-stage companies may have new funding opportunities.

And, through the AGA Research Foundation, the organization will continue to support clinical research. Last year, $2.6 million in grants were awarded to investigators.

Dr. Carethers is a board director at Avantor, a life sciences supply company.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – It’s been 125 years since the founding of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). It’s gone from a small organization in which gastroenterology wasn’t even a known medical specialty, to an organization that grants millions of dollars in research funding each year.

University of California San Diego

Congratulating the organization on its 125th anniversary, AGA president John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, reflected on its history and outlined many accomplishments and challenges. He spoke with optimism about gastroenterology’s future during his presidential address on May 8 at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) meeting in Chicago.

“I congratulate the AGA on its quasquicentennial, or 125th anniversary,” said Dr. Carethers, who is distinguished professor of medicine and vice chancellor for health sciences at the University of California, San Diego.

The AGA was founded in 1897 by Detroit-based physician Charles Aaron, MD. His passion was gastroenterology, but at that point, it wasn’t an established medical discipline. Dr. Aaron, Max Einhorn, MD, and 8 other colleagues formed the American Gastroenterological Association. Today, with nearly 16,000 members, the organization has become a driving force in improving the care of patients with gastrointestinal conditions.

Among AGA’s accomplishments since its founding: In 1940, the American Board of Internal Medicine certified gastroenterology as a subspecialty. Three years later, the first issue of Gastroenterology, the AGA’s flagship journal, was published. And, in 1971, the very first Digestive Disease Week® meeting took place.

In terms of medical advances that have been made since those early years, the list is vast: From the description of ileitis in 1932 by Burril B. Crohn, MD, in 1932 to the discovery of the hepatitis B surface antigen in 1965 and the more recent discovery of germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes as a cause of Lynch syndrome.

Dr. Carethers outlined goals for the future, including building a leadership team that is “reflective of our practice here in the United States,” Dr. Carethers said. Creating a culturally and gender diverse leadership team will only strengthen the organization and the practice of gastroenterology. The AGA’s first female president, Sarah Jordan, MD, was named in 1942, and since then, the AGA has been led by women and men from different ethnic backgrounds, including himself, who is AGA’s first president of African American heritage.

The AGA has committed to a number of diversity and equity objectives, including the AGA Equity Project, an initiative launched in 2020 whose goal is to achieve equity and eradicate disparities in digestive diseases with a focus on justice and equity, research and funding, workforce and leadership, recognition of the achievements of people of color, unconscious bias, and engagement with early career members.

“I am not only excited about the diversity and equity objectives within our specialty ... but also the innovation and things to come for our specialty,” Dr. Carethers said.

Securing funding for early-stage innovations in medicine can be difficult across medical disciplines, including gastroenterology. So, last year, the AGA, with Varia Ventures, launched the GI Opportunity Fund 1 to support early-stage GI-based companies. The goal is to raise $25 million for the initial fund. Through the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology and the AGA Tech Summit, early-stage companies may have new funding opportunities.

And, through the AGA Research Foundation, the organization will continue to support clinical research. Last year, $2.6 million in grants were awarded to investigators.

Dr. Carethers is a board director at Avantor, a life sciences supply company.

The meeting is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Lung Transplant Section

In March 2023, the Composite Allocation Score (CAS) will replace the Lung Allocation Score (LAS) for matching donor lungs to transplant candidates in the United States. The LAS was implemented in 2005 to improve lung organ utilization. Its score was determined by two main factors: (1) risk of 1-year waitlist mortality and (2) likelihood of 1-year post-transplant survival, with the first factor having twice the weight. However, LAS did not account for candidate biology attributes, such as pediatric age, blood type, allosensitization, or height. Long-term survival outcomes under LAS may be reduced, given the greater emphasis on waitlist mortality. Candidates were also subjected to strict geographical distributions within a 250-nautical-mile radius, which frequently resulted in those with lower LAS obtaining a transplant. CAS differs from the LAS in that it assigns an allocation score in a continuous distribution based on the following factors: medical urgency, expected survival benefit following transplant, pediatric age, blood type, HLA antibody sensitization, candidate height, and geographical proximity to the donor organ. Each factor has a specific weight, and because donor factors contribute to CAS, a candidate’s score changes with each donor-recipient match run. Continuous distribution removes hard geographical boundaries and aims for more equitable organ allocation. To understand how allocation might change with CAS, Valapour and colleagues created various CAS scenarios using data from individuals on the national transplant waiting list (Am J Transplant. 2022;22[12]:2971).

They found that waitlist deaths decreased by 36%-47%. This effect was greatest in scenarios where there was less weight on placement efficiency (ie, geography) and more weight on post-transplant outcomes. Transplant system equity also improved in their simulation models. It will be exciting to see how candidate and recipient outcomes are affected once CAS is implemented.

Gloria Li, MD
Member-at-Large

Keith Wille, MD, MSPH
Member-at-Large

Reference

1. United Network for Organ Sharing. www.unos.org.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Lung Transplant Section

In March 2023, the Composite Allocation Score (CAS) will replace the Lung Allocation Score (LAS) for matching donor lungs to transplant candidates in the United States. The LAS was implemented in 2005 to improve lung organ utilization. Its score was determined by two main factors: (1) risk of 1-year waitlist mortality and (2) likelihood of 1-year post-transplant survival, with the first factor having twice the weight. However, LAS did not account for candidate biology attributes, such as pediatric age, blood type, allosensitization, or height. Long-term survival outcomes under LAS may be reduced, given the greater emphasis on waitlist mortality. Candidates were also subjected to strict geographical distributions within a 250-nautical-mile radius, which frequently resulted in those with lower LAS obtaining a transplant. CAS differs from the LAS in that it assigns an allocation score in a continuous distribution based on the following factors: medical urgency, expected survival benefit following transplant, pediatric age, blood type, HLA antibody sensitization, candidate height, and geographical proximity to the donor organ. Each factor has a specific weight, and because donor factors contribute to CAS, a candidate’s score changes with each donor-recipient match run. Continuous distribution removes hard geographical boundaries and aims for more equitable organ allocation. To understand how allocation might change with CAS, Valapour and colleagues created various CAS scenarios using data from individuals on the national transplant waiting list (Am J Transplant. 2022;22[12]:2971).

They found that waitlist deaths decreased by 36%-47%. This effect was greatest in scenarios where there was less weight on placement efficiency (ie, geography) and more weight on post-transplant outcomes. Transplant system equity also improved in their simulation models. It will be exciting to see how candidate and recipient outcomes are affected once CAS is implemented.

Gloria Li, MD
Member-at-Large

Keith Wille, MD, MSPH
Member-at-Large

Reference

1. United Network for Organ Sharing. www.unos.org.

Diffuse Lung Disease and Lung Transplant Network

Lung Transplant Section

In March 2023, the Composite Allocation Score (CAS) will replace the Lung Allocation Score (LAS) for matching donor lungs to transplant candidates in the United States. The LAS was implemented in 2005 to improve lung organ utilization. Its score was determined by two main factors: (1) risk of 1-year waitlist mortality and (2) likelihood of 1-year post-transplant survival, with the first factor having twice the weight. However, LAS did not account for candidate biology attributes, such as pediatric age, blood type, allosensitization, or height. Long-term survival outcomes under LAS may be reduced, given the greater emphasis on waitlist mortality. Candidates were also subjected to strict geographical distributions within a 250-nautical-mile radius, which frequently resulted in those with lower LAS obtaining a transplant. CAS differs from the LAS in that it assigns an allocation score in a continuous distribution based on the following factors: medical urgency, expected survival benefit following transplant, pediatric age, blood type, HLA antibody sensitization, candidate height, and geographical proximity to the donor organ. Each factor has a specific weight, and because donor factors contribute to CAS, a candidate’s score changes with each donor-recipient match run. Continuous distribution removes hard geographical boundaries and aims for more equitable organ allocation. To understand how allocation might change with CAS, Valapour and colleagues created various CAS scenarios using data from individuals on the national transplant waiting list (Am J Transplant. 2022;22[12]:2971).

They found that waitlist deaths decreased by 36%-47%. This effect was greatest in scenarios where there was less weight on placement efficiency (ie, geography) and more weight on post-transplant outcomes. Transplant system equity also improved in their simulation models. It will be exciting to see how candidate and recipient outcomes are affected once CAS is implemented.

Gloria Li, MD
Member-at-Large

Keith Wille, MD, MSPH
Member-at-Large

Reference

1. United Network for Organ Sharing. www.unos.org.

Critical Care Network

Sepsis/Shock Section

Sepsis remains the commonest diagnosis for hospital stays in the United States and the top hospital readmission diagnosis, with aggregate costs of $23.7 billion in 2013 (https://datatools.ahrq.gov/hcup-fast-stats; Kim H, et al. Front Public Health. 2022;10:882715; Torio C, Moore B. 2016. HCUP Statistical Brief #204).

Since 2013, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) adopted pneumonia as a readmission measure, and in 2016, this measure included sepsis patients with pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. For 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suppressed pneumonia as a readmission measure due to COVID-19’s significant impact (www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program). Though sepsis is not a direct readmission measure, it could be one in the future. Studies found higher long-term mortality for patients with sepsis readmitted for recurrent sepsis (Pandolfi F, et al. Crit Care. 2022;26[1]:371; McNamara JF, et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:34).

A systematic review showed independent risk factors predictive of sepsis readmission: older age, male gender, African American and Asian ethnicities, higher baseline comorbidities, and discharge to a facility. In contrast, sepsis-specific risk factors were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase gram-negative bacterial infections, increased hospital length of stay during initial admission, and increased illness severity (Shankar-Hari M, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46[4]:619; Amrollahi F, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29[7]:1263; Gadre SK, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:483).

McNamara and colleagues found that patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections had higher readmission rates for sepsis during a 4-year follow-up and had a lower 5-year survival rates Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:34). Hospitals can prevent readmissions by strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programs to ensure appropriate and adequate treatment of initial infections. Other predictive risk factors for readmission are lower socioeconomic status (Shankar-Hari M, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46[4]:619), lack of health insurance, and delays seeking medical care due to lack of transportation (Amrollahi F, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29[7]:1263).

Sepsis readmissions can be mitigated by predictive analytics, better access to health care, establishing post-discharge clinic follow-ups, transportation arrangements, and telemedicine. More research is needed to evaluate sepsis readmission prevention.

Shu Xian Lee, MD

Fellow-in-Training

Deepa Gotur, MD, FCCP

Member-at-Large

Critical Care Network

Sepsis/Shock Section

Sepsis remains the commonest diagnosis for hospital stays in the United States and the top hospital readmission diagnosis, with aggregate costs of $23.7 billion in 2013 (https://datatools.ahrq.gov/hcup-fast-stats; Kim H, et al. Front Public Health. 2022;10:882715; Torio C, Moore B. 2016. HCUP Statistical Brief #204).

Since 2013, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) adopted pneumonia as a readmission measure, and in 2016, this measure included sepsis patients with pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. For 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suppressed pneumonia as a readmission measure due to COVID-19’s significant impact (www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program). Though sepsis is not a direct readmission measure, it could be one in the future. Studies found higher long-term mortality for patients with sepsis readmitted for recurrent sepsis (Pandolfi F, et al. Crit Care. 2022;26[1]:371; McNamara JF, et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:34).

A systematic review showed independent risk factors predictive of sepsis readmission: older age, male gender, African American and Asian ethnicities, higher baseline comorbidities, and discharge to a facility. In contrast, sepsis-specific risk factors were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase gram-negative bacterial infections, increased hospital length of stay during initial admission, and increased illness severity (Shankar-Hari M, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46[4]:619; Amrollahi F, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29[7]:1263; Gadre SK, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:483).

McNamara and colleagues found that patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections had higher readmission rates for sepsis during a 4-year follow-up and had a lower 5-year survival rates Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:34). Hospitals can prevent readmissions by strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programs to ensure appropriate and adequate treatment of initial infections. Other predictive risk factors for readmission are lower socioeconomic status (Shankar-Hari M, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46[4]:619), lack of health insurance, and delays seeking medical care due to lack of transportation (Amrollahi F, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29[7]:1263).

Sepsis readmissions can be mitigated by predictive analytics, better access to health care, establishing post-discharge clinic follow-ups, transportation arrangements, and telemedicine. More research is needed to evaluate sepsis readmission prevention.

Shu Xian Lee, MD

Fellow-in-Training

Deepa Gotur, MD, FCCP

Member-at-Large

Critical Care Network

Sepsis/Shock Section

Sepsis remains the commonest diagnosis for hospital stays in the United States and the top hospital readmission diagnosis, with aggregate costs of $23.7 billion in 2013 (https://datatools.ahrq.gov/hcup-fast-stats; Kim H, et al. Front Public Health. 2022;10:882715; Torio C, Moore B. 2016. HCUP Statistical Brief #204).

Since 2013, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) adopted pneumonia as a readmission measure, and in 2016, this measure included sepsis patients with pneumonia and aspiration pneumonia. For 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suppressed pneumonia as a readmission measure due to COVID-19’s significant impact (www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/Readmissions-Reduction-Program). Though sepsis is not a direct readmission measure, it could be one in the future. Studies found higher long-term mortality for patients with sepsis readmitted for recurrent sepsis (Pandolfi F, et al. Crit Care. 2022;26[1]:371; McNamara JF, et al. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:34).

A systematic review showed independent risk factors predictive of sepsis readmission: older age, male gender, African American and Asian ethnicities, higher baseline comorbidities, and discharge to a facility. In contrast, sepsis-specific risk factors were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase gram-negative bacterial infections, increased hospital length of stay during initial admission, and increased illness severity (Shankar-Hari M, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46[4]:619; Amrollahi F, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29[7]:1263; Gadre SK, et al. Chest. 2019;155[3]:483).

McNamara and colleagues found that patients with gram-negative bloodstream infections had higher readmission rates for sepsis during a 4-year follow-up and had a lower 5-year survival rates Int J Infect Dis. 2022;114:34). Hospitals can prevent readmissions by strengthening antimicrobial stewardship programs to ensure appropriate and adequate treatment of initial infections. Other predictive risk factors for readmission are lower socioeconomic status (Shankar-Hari M, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46[4]:619), lack of health insurance, and delays seeking medical care due to lack of transportation (Amrollahi F, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29[7]:1263).

Sepsis readmissions can be mitigated by predictive analytics, better access to health care, establishing post-discharge clinic follow-ups, transportation arrangements, and telemedicine. More research is needed to evaluate sepsis readmission prevention.

Shu Xian Lee, MD

Fellow-in-Training

Deepa Gotur, MD, FCCP

Member-at-Large

Based on discussions during PancreasFest 2021, a group of experts and key opinion leaders have proposed a new definition of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) and best practices for diagnosis and management, according to a recent report in Gastro Hep Advances

Due to its complex and individualized nature, EPI requires multidisciplinary approaches to therapy, as well as better pancreas function tests and biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment, wrote researchers who were led by David C. Whitcomb, MD, PhD, AGAF, emeritus professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh.

University of Pittsburgh

“This condition remains challenging even to define, and serious limitations in diagnostic testing and therapeutic options lead to clinical confusion and frequently less than optimal patient management,” the authors wrote.

EPI is clinically defined as inadequate delivery of pancreatic digestive enzymes to meet nutritional needs, which is typically based on a physician’s assessment of a patient’s maldigestion. However, there’s not a universally accepted definition or a precise threshold of reduced pancreatic digestive enzymes that indicates “pancreatic insufficiency” in an individual patient.

Current guidelines also don’t clearly outline the role of pancreatic function tests, the effects of different metabolic needs and nutrition intake, the timing of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), or the best practices for monitoring or titrating multiple therapies.

In response, Dr. Whitcomb and colleagues proposed a new mechanistic definition of EPI, including the disorder’s physiologic effects and impact on health. First, they said, EPI is a disorder caused by failure of the pancreas to deliver a minimum or threshold level of specific pancreatic digestive enzymes to the intestine in concert with ingested nutrients, followed by enzymatic digestion of individual meals over time to meet certain nutritional and metabolic needs. In addition, the disorder is characterized by variable deficiencies in micronutrients and macronutrients, especially essential fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms of nutrient maldigestion.

The threshold for EPI should consider the nutritional needs of the patient, dietary intake, residual exocrine pancreas function, and the absorptive capacity of the intestine based on anatomy, mucosal function, motility, inflammation, the microbiome, and physiological adaptation, the authors wrote.

Due to challenges in diagnosing EPI and its common chronic symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea, several conditions may mimic EPI, be present concomitantly with EPI, or hinder PERT response. These include celiac disease, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, disaccharidase deficiencies, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), bile acid diarrhea, giardiasis, diabetes mellitus, and functional conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. These conditions should be considered to address underlying pathology and PERT diagnostic challenges.

Although there is consensus that exocrine pancreatic function testing (PFT) is important to diagnosis EPI, no optimal test exists, and pancreatic function is only one aspect of digestion and absorption that should be considered. PFT may be needed to make an objective EPI diagnosis related to acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, pancreatic resection, gastric resection, cystic fibrosis, or IBD. Direct or indirect PFTs may be used, which typically differs by center.

“The medical community still awaits a clinically useful pancreas function test that is easy to perform, well tolerated by patients, and allows personalized dosing of PERT,” the authors wrote.

After diagnosis, a general assessment should include information about symptoms, nutritional status, medications, diet, and lifestyle. This information can be used for a multifaceted treatment approach, with a focus on lifestyle changes, concomitant disease treatment, optimized diet, dietary supplements, and PERT administration.

PERT remains a mainstay of EPI treatment and has shown improvements in steatorrhea, postprandial bloating and pain, nutrition, and unexplained weight loss. The Food and Drug Administration has approved several formulations in different strengths. The typical starting dose is based on age and weight, which is derived from guidelines for EPI treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis. However, the recommendations don’t consider many of the variables discussed above and simply provide an estimate for the average subject with severe EPI, so the dose should be titrated as needed based on age, weight, symptoms, and the holistic management plan.

For optimal results, regular follow-up is necessary to monitor compliance and treatment response. A reduction in symptoms can serve as a reliable indicator of effective EPI management, particularly weight stabilization, improved steatorrhea and diarrhea, and reduced postprandial bloating, pain, and flatulence. Physicians may provide patients with tracking tools to record their PERT compliance, symptom frequency, and lifestyle changes.

For patients with persistent concerns, PERT can be increased as needed. Although many PERT formulations are enteric coated, a proton pump inhibitor or H2 receptor agonist may improve their effectiveness. If EPI symptoms persist despite increased doses, other causes of malabsorption should be considered, such as the concomitant conditions mentioned above.

“As EPI escalates, a lower fat diet may become necessary to alleviate distressing gastrointestinal symptoms,” the authors wrote. “A close working relationship between the treating provider and the [registered dietician] is crucial so that barriers to optimum nutrient assimilation can be identified, communicated, and overcome. Frequent monitoring of the nutritional state with therapy is also imperative.”

PancreasFest 2021 received no specific funding for this event. The authors declared grant support, adviser roles, and speaking honoraria from several pharmaceutical and medical device companies and health care foundations, including the National Pancreas Foundation.

Based on discussions during PancreasFest 2021, a group of experts and key opinion leaders have proposed a new definition of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) and best practices for diagnosis and management, according to a recent report in Gastro Hep Advances

Due to its complex and individualized nature, EPI requires multidisciplinary approaches to therapy, as well as better pancreas function tests and biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment, wrote researchers who were led by David C. Whitcomb, MD, PhD, AGAF, emeritus professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh.

University of Pittsburgh

“This condition remains challenging even to define, and serious limitations in diagnostic testing and therapeutic options lead to clinical confusion and frequently less than optimal patient management,” the authors wrote.

EPI is clinically defined as inadequate delivery of pancreatic digestive enzymes to meet nutritional needs, which is typically based on a physician’s assessment of a patient’s maldigestion. However, there’s not a universally accepted definition or a precise threshold of reduced pancreatic digestive enzymes that indicates “pancreatic insufficiency” in an individual patient.

Current guidelines also don’t clearly outline the role of pancreatic function tests, the effects of different metabolic needs and nutrition intake, the timing of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), or the best practices for monitoring or titrating multiple therapies.

In response, Dr. Whitcomb and colleagues proposed a new mechanistic definition of EPI, including the disorder’s physiologic effects and impact on health. First, they said, EPI is a disorder caused by failure of the pancreas to deliver a minimum or threshold level of specific pancreatic digestive enzymes to the intestine in concert with ingested nutrients, followed by enzymatic digestion of individual meals over time to meet certain nutritional and metabolic needs. In addition, the disorder is characterized by variable deficiencies in micronutrients and macronutrients, especially essential fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms of nutrient maldigestion.

The threshold for EPI should consider the nutritional needs of the patient, dietary intake, residual exocrine pancreas function, and the absorptive capacity of the intestine based on anatomy, mucosal function, motility, inflammation, the microbiome, and physiological adaptation, the authors wrote.

Due to challenges in diagnosing EPI and its common chronic symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea, several conditions may mimic EPI, be present concomitantly with EPI, or hinder PERT response. These include celiac disease, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, disaccharidase deficiencies, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), bile acid diarrhea, giardiasis, diabetes mellitus, and functional conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. These conditions should be considered to address underlying pathology and PERT diagnostic challenges.

Although there is consensus that exocrine pancreatic function testing (PFT) is important to diagnosis EPI, no optimal test exists, and pancreatic function is only one aspect of digestion and absorption that should be considered. PFT may be needed to make an objective EPI diagnosis related to acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, pancreatic resection, gastric resection, cystic fibrosis, or IBD. Direct or indirect PFTs may be used, which typically differs by center.

“The medical community still awaits a clinically useful pancreas function test that is easy to perform, well tolerated by patients, and allows personalized dosing of PERT,” the authors wrote.

After diagnosis, a general assessment should include information about symptoms, nutritional status, medications, diet, and lifestyle. This information can be used for a multifaceted treatment approach, with a focus on lifestyle changes, concomitant disease treatment, optimized diet, dietary supplements, and PERT administration.

PERT remains a mainstay of EPI treatment and has shown improvements in steatorrhea, postprandial bloating and pain, nutrition, and unexplained weight loss. The Food and Drug Administration has approved several formulations in different strengths. The typical starting dose is based on age and weight, which is derived from guidelines for EPI treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis. However, the recommendations don’t consider many of the variables discussed above and simply provide an estimate for the average subject with severe EPI, so the dose should be titrated as needed based on age, weight, symptoms, and the holistic management plan.

For optimal results, regular follow-up is necessary to monitor compliance and treatment response. A reduction in symptoms can serve as a reliable indicator of effective EPI management, particularly weight stabilization, improved steatorrhea and diarrhea, and reduced postprandial bloating, pain, and flatulence. Physicians may provide patients with tracking tools to record their PERT compliance, symptom frequency, and lifestyle changes.

For patients with persistent concerns, PERT can be increased as needed. Although many PERT formulations are enteric coated, a proton pump inhibitor or H2 receptor agonist may improve their effectiveness. If EPI symptoms persist despite increased doses, other causes of malabsorption should be considered, such as the concomitant conditions mentioned above.

“As EPI escalates, a lower fat diet may become necessary to alleviate distressing gastrointestinal symptoms,” the authors wrote. “A close working relationship between the treating provider and the [registered dietician] is crucial so that barriers to optimum nutrient assimilation can be identified, communicated, and overcome. Frequent monitoring of the nutritional state with therapy is also imperative.”

PancreasFest 2021 received no specific funding for this event. The authors declared grant support, adviser roles, and speaking honoraria from several pharmaceutical and medical device companies and health care foundations, including the National Pancreas Foundation.

Based on discussions during PancreasFest 2021, a group of experts and key opinion leaders have proposed a new definition of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) and best practices for diagnosis and management, according to a recent report in Gastro Hep Advances

Due to its complex and individualized nature, EPI requires multidisciplinary approaches to therapy, as well as better pancreas function tests and biomarkers for diagnosis and treatment, wrote researchers who were led by David C. Whitcomb, MD, PhD, AGAF, emeritus professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh.

University of Pittsburgh

“This condition remains challenging even to define, and serious limitations in diagnostic testing and therapeutic options lead to clinical confusion and frequently less than optimal patient management,” the authors wrote.

EPI is clinically defined as inadequate delivery of pancreatic digestive enzymes to meet nutritional needs, which is typically based on a physician’s assessment of a patient’s maldigestion. However, there’s not a universally accepted definition or a precise threshold of reduced pancreatic digestive enzymes that indicates “pancreatic insufficiency” in an individual patient.

Current guidelines also don’t clearly outline the role of pancreatic function tests, the effects of different metabolic needs and nutrition intake, the timing of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), or the best practices for monitoring or titrating multiple therapies.

In response, Dr. Whitcomb and colleagues proposed a new mechanistic definition of EPI, including the disorder’s physiologic effects and impact on health. First, they said, EPI is a disorder caused by failure of the pancreas to deliver a minimum or threshold level of specific pancreatic digestive enzymes to the intestine in concert with ingested nutrients, followed by enzymatic digestion of individual meals over time to meet certain nutritional and metabolic needs. In addition, the disorder is characterized by variable deficiencies in micronutrients and macronutrients, especially essential fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms of nutrient maldigestion.

The threshold for EPI should consider the nutritional needs of the patient, dietary intake, residual exocrine pancreas function, and the absorptive capacity of the intestine based on anatomy, mucosal function, motility, inflammation, the microbiome, and physiological adaptation, the authors wrote.

Due to challenges in diagnosing EPI and its common chronic symptoms such as abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea, several conditions may mimic EPI, be present concomitantly with EPI, or hinder PERT response. These include celiac disease, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, disaccharidase deficiencies, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), bile acid diarrhea, giardiasis, diabetes mellitus, and functional conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome. These conditions should be considered to address underlying pathology and PERT diagnostic challenges.

Although there is consensus that exocrine pancreatic function testing (PFT) is important to diagnosis EPI, no optimal test exists, and pancreatic function is only one aspect of digestion and absorption that should be considered. PFT may be needed to make an objective EPI diagnosis related to acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, pancreatic resection, gastric resection, cystic fibrosis, or IBD. Direct or indirect PFTs may be used, which typically differs by center.

“The medical community still awaits a clinically useful pancreas function test that is easy to perform, well tolerated by patients, and allows personalized dosing of PERT,” the authors wrote.

After diagnosis, a general assessment should include information about symptoms, nutritional status, medications, diet, and lifestyle. This information can be used for a multifaceted treatment approach, with a focus on lifestyle changes, concomitant disease treatment, optimized diet, dietary supplements, and PERT administration.

PERT remains a mainstay of EPI treatment and has shown improvements in steatorrhea, postprandial bloating and pain, nutrition, and unexplained weight loss. The Food and Drug Administration has approved several formulations in different strengths. The typical starting dose is based on age and weight, which is derived from guidelines for EPI treatment in patients with cystic fibrosis. However, the recommendations don’t consider many of the variables discussed above and simply provide an estimate for the average subject with severe EPI, so the dose should be titrated as needed based on age, weight, symptoms, and the holistic management plan.

For optimal results, regular follow-up is necessary to monitor compliance and treatment response. A reduction in symptoms can serve as a reliable indicator of effective EPI management, particularly weight stabilization, improved steatorrhea and diarrhea, and reduced postprandial bloating, pain, and flatulence. Physicians may provide patients with tracking tools to record their PERT compliance, symptom frequency, and lifestyle changes.

For patients with persistent concerns, PERT can be increased as needed. Although many PERT formulations are enteric coated, a proton pump inhibitor or H2 receptor agonist may improve their effectiveness. If EPI symptoms persist despite increased doses, other causes of malabsorption should be considered, such as the concomitant conditions mentioned above.

“As EPI escalates, a lower fat diet may become necessary to alleviate distressing gastrointestinal symptoms,” the authors wrote. “A close working relationship between the treating provider and the [registered dietician] is crucial so that barriers to optimum nutrient assimilation can be identified, communicated, and overcome. Frequent monitoring of the nutritional state with therapy is also imperative.”

PancreasFest 2021 received no specific funding for this event. The authors declared grant support, adviser roles, and speaking honoraria from several pharmaceutical and medical device companies and health care foundations, including the National Pancreas Foundation.

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – The total annual waste generated by a single, large academic endoscopy unit over 2 months could cover about two football fields, according to Madhav Desai, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. About 20% of the waste, most of which went to landfills, was potentially recyclable, he said in a presentation given at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting.

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are critical for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. But like other medical procedures, endoscopies are a source of environmental waste, including plastic, sharps, personal protective equipment (PPE), and cleaning supplies, and also energy waste.

Walter Alexander/MDedge News

“This all goes back to the damage that mankind is inflicting on the environment in general, with the health care sector as one of the top contributors to plastic waste generation, landfills and water wastage,” Dr. Desai said. “Endoscopies, with their numerous benefits, substantially increase waste generation through landfill waste and liquid consumption and waste through the cleaning of endoscopes. We have a responsibility to look into this topic.”

To prospectively assess total waste generation from their institution, Dr. Desai, who was with the Kansas City (Mo.) Veterans Administration Medical Center, when the research was conducted, collected data on the items used in 450 consecutive procedures from May to June 2022. The data included procedure type, accessory use, intravenous tubing, numbers of biopsy jars, linens, PPE, and more, beginning at the point of patient entry to the endoscopy unit until discharge. They also collected data on waste generation related to reprocessing after each procedure and daily energy use (including endoscopy equipment, lights, and computers). With an eye toward finding opportunities to improve and maximize waste recycling, they stratified waste into the three categories of biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable.

“We found that the total waste generated during the time period was 1,398.6 kg, with more than half of it, 61.6%, going directly to landfill,” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “That’s an amount that an average family in the U.S. would use for 2 months. That’s a huge amount.”
 

Most waste consists of sharps

Exactly one-third was biohazard waste and 5.1% was sharps, they found. A single procedure, on average, sent 2.19 kg of waste to landfill. Extrapolated to 1 year, the waste total amounts to 9,189 kg (equivalent to just over 10 U.S. tons) and per 100 procedures to 219 kg (about 483 pounds).

They estimated 20% of the landfill waste was potentially recyclable (such as plastic CO₂ tubing, O₂ connector, syringes, etc.), which could reduce the total landfill burden by 8.6 kg per day or 2,580 kg per year (or 61 kg per 100 procedures). Reprocessing endoscopes generated 194 gallons of liquid waste (735.26 kg) per day or 1,385 gallons per 100 procedures.

Turning to energy consumption, Dr. Desai reported that daily use in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW-hours (equivalent to 8.2 gallons of gasoline), adding up to about 1,980 kW per 100 procedures. “That 100-procedure amount is the equivalent of the energy used for an average fuel efficiency car to travel 1,200 miles, the distance from Seattle to San Diego,” he said.

“One next step,” Dr. Desai said, “is getting help from GI societies to come together and have endoscopy units track their own performance. You need benchmarks so that you can determine how good an endoscopist you are with respect to waste.”

He commented further:“We all owe it to the environment. And, we have all witnessed what Mother Nature can do to you.”

Working on the potentially recyclable materials that account for 20% of the total waste would be a simple initial step to reduce waste going to landfills, Dr. Desai and colleagues concluded in the meeting abstract. “These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and move toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units,” they wrote.

The authors reported no disclosures.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.

That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that screening every single 30-year-old in the United States for three particular genetic conditions may not only save lives but be reasonably cost-effective.

Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.

Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.

That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that screening every single 30-year-old in the United States for three particular genetic conditions may not only save lives but be reasonably cost-effective.

Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.

Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

Milestone birthdays are always memorable – those ages when your life seems to fundamentally change somehow. Age 16: A license to drive. Age 18: You can vote to determine your own future and serve in the military. At 21, 3 years after adulthood, you are finally allowed to drink alcohol, for some reason. And then ... nothing much happens. At least until you turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

But imagine a future when turning 30 might be the biggest milestone birthday of all. Imagine a future when, at 30, you get your genome sequenced and doctors tell you what needs to be done to save your life.

That future may not be far off, as a new study shows us that screening every single 30-year-old in the United States for three particular genetic conditions may not only save lives but be reasonably cost-effective.

Getting your genome sequenced is a double-edged sword. Of course, there is the potential for substantial benefit; finding certain mutations allows for definitive therapy before it’s too late. That said, there are genetic diseases without a cure and without a treatment. Knowing about that destiny may do more harm than good.

Three conditions are described by the CDC as “Tier 1” conditions, genetic syndromes with a significant impact on life expectancy that also have definitive, effective therapies.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.¹ Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA report to Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.² The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.

The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.³ To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.⁴ The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.⁴ The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.⁴

The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.

VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.

VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.^5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.⁷ And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.

Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.⁸ And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.

Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.

The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.¹ Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA report to Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.² The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.

The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.³ To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.⁴ The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.⁴ The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.⁴

The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.

VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.

VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.^5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.⁷ And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.

Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.⁸ And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.

Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.

The VA MISSION Act of 2018 expanded options for veterans to receive government-paid health care from private sector community health care practitioners. The act tasked the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop rules that determine eligibility for outside care based on appointment wait times or distance to the nearest VA facility. As a part of those standards, VA opted not to include the availability of VA telehealth in its wait time calculations—a decision that we believe was a gross misjudgment with far-reaching consequences for veterans. Excluding telehealth from the guidelines has unnecessarily restricted veterans’ access to high-quality health care and has squandered large sums of taxpayer dollars.

The VA has reviewed its initial MISSION Act eligibility standards and proposed a correction that recognizes telehealth as a valid means of providing health care to veterans who prefer that option.¹ Telehealth may not have been an essential component of health care before the COVID-19 pandemic, but now it is clear that the best action VA can take is to swiftly enact its recommended change, stipulating that both VA telehealth and in-person health care constitute access to treatment. If implemented, this correction would save taxpayers an astronomical sum—according to a VA report to Congress, about $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021 alone.² The cost savings from this proposed correction is reason enough to implement it. But just as importantly, increased use of VA telehealth also means higher quality, quicker, and more convenient care for veterans.

The VA is the recognized world leader in providing telehealth that is effective, timely, and veteran centric. Veterans across the country have access to telehealth services in more than 30 specialties.³ To ensure accessibility, the VA has established partnerships with major mobile broadband carriers so that veterans can receive telehealth at home without additional charges.⁴ The VA project Accessing Telehealth through Local Area Stations (ATLAS) brings VA telehealth to areas where existing internet infrastructure may not be adequate to support video telehealth. ATLAS is a collaboration with private organizations, including Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, and Walmart.⁴ The agency also provides tablets to veterans who might not have access to telehealth, fostering higher access and patient satisfaction.⁴

The VA can initiate telehealth care rapidly. The “Anywhere to Anywhere” VA Health Care initiative and telecare hubs eliminate geographic constraints, allowing clinicians to provide team-based services across county and state lines to veterans’ homes and communities.

VA’s telehealth effort maximizes convenience for veterans. It reduces travel time, travel expenses, depletion of sick leave, and the need for childcare. Veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder or military sexual trauma who are triggered by traffic and waiting rooms, those with mobility issues, or those facing the stigma of mental health treatment often prefer to receive care in the familiarity of their home. Nonetheless, any veteran who desires an in-person appointment would continue to have that option under the proposed VA rule change.

VA telehealth is often used for mental health care, using the same evidence-based psychotherapies that VA has championed and are superior to that available in the private sector.^5,6 This advantage is largely due to VA’s rigorous training, consultation, case review, care delivery, measurement standards, and integrated care model. In a recent survey of veterans engaged in mental health care, 80% reported that VA virtual care via video and/or telephone is as helpful or more helpful than in‐person services.⁷ And yet, because of existing regulations, VA telemental health (TMH) does not qualify as access, resulting in hundreds of thousands of TMH visits being outsourced yearly to community practitioners that could be quickly and beneficially furnished by VA clinicians.

Telehealth has been shown to be as clinically effective as in-person care. A recent review of 38 meta-analyses covering telehealth with 10 medical disciplines found that for all disciplines, telehealth was as effective, if not more so, than conventional care.⁸ And because the likelihood of not showing up for telehealth appointments is lower than for in-person appointments, continuity of care is uninterrupted, and health care outcomes are improved.

Telehealth is health care. The VA must end the double standard that has handicapped it from including telehealth availability in determinations of eligibility for community care. The VA has voiced its intention to seek stakeholder input before implementing its proposed correction. The change is long overdue. It will save the VA a billion dollars annually while ensuring that veterans have quicker access to better treatment.