All Content

BOSTON – Treatment of persons who inject drugs, updates in pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral therapy, the benefits of sustained virologic response, and preemptive therapy in donor-positive organ transplantation topped the list of notable hepatitis C–related abstracts this year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

That’s according to Marc Ghany, MD, of the liver diseases branch of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, who gave a hepatitis C debrief to attendees on the final day of the meeting. Here are some of the meeting highlights as summarized by Dr. Ghany in this well-attended last-day session.
 

Treatment of HCV in people who inject drugs

Emerging data suggest it is feasible to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in persons who inject drugs (PWIDs); however, overcoming adherence issues remains a challenge, Dr. Ghany told attendees.

According to one study presented at AASLD by Dhiman and coauthors (Abstract 0165), decentralized care of PWIDs using direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy was safe and effective, even in those with cirrhosis. Authors demonstrated an “impressive” rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) of 91% by a modified intention-to-treat analysis, Dr. Ghany said; however, treatment interruptions were frequent and reduced the overall SVR rate in the study to 78%.

Other studies at the meeting looked at strategies to improve DAA efficacy in this population of patients at high risk of nonadherence, including use of a digital medicine program (Abstract 1554) and a model of care in which an internist-addiction medicine specialist evaluated opiate-dependent patients for HCV infection in a hepatology clinic (Abstract 1589).

Reinfection remains a focus of research in PWIDs. At this meeting, Janjua and coauthors reported that DAA-treated PWIDs in British Columbia had a threefold higher rate of reinfection versus non-PWIDs; however, there were no detected reinfections among PWIDs who had received uninterrupted opioid agonist therapy. “These data suggested that opioid agonist therapy should be given before and after HCV treatment in persons who inject drugs to prevent the infection,” Dr. Ghany said in his presentation.
 

Updates on pangenotypic DAA therapy

Jonas and coauthors (Abstract 1551) reported on the safety and efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8 weeks in children with chronic HCV infection enrolled in the ongoing phase 2/3 DORA study. The SVR12 was high, according to Dr. Ghany, at 96% overall, and consistent across age cohorts from 3 to less than 12 years of age.

“In the near future, we should have a safe and effective regimen (approved) for children 3 years or older,” Dr. Ghany said. “I think this will serve us well, as we try to eliminate HCV in children, who number up to 5 million cases worldwide.”

A short course of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is approved for patients with HCV and compensated cirrhosis, and data to support that was presented last year at The Liver Meeting; however, data were not presented on patients with genotype 3, the most difficult-to-treat genotype, Dr. Ghany said. That gap was filled at this year’s meeting with a report (Abstract LP9) showing SVR12 rates of 98.4% per protocol and 95.2% in intention-to-treat analysis.
 

Relationship of SVR to clinical outcomes

While the impact of sustained virologic response (SVR) on all-cause mortality is clear in patients with HCV, less is known about the effect of SVR on liver-related mortality and other outcomes, Dr. Ghany said. In one study presented here (Abstract 0039), based on analysis of a Veterans Affairs database of patients with chronic HCV infection, SVR was linked to a significant reduction in liver-related mortality, while in another report (Abstract 0037), SVR was associated with significant reductions in acute coronary syndromes, end-stage renal disease, and ischemic stroke.

Similarly, a multinational, propensity score–matched analysis (Abstract 0040) demonstrated that SVR had an impact on 5-year overall survival and liver-related survival in patients with HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). “For HCC patients who are candidates for HCC therapy, consideration should also be given to treating these individuals (with DAA therapy) because of the impact on overall survival,” Dr. Ghany said.
 

Preemptive DAA therapy in organ transplantation

Exciting new data show that preemptive therapy, given for short durations, appears to either prevent or cure HCV infection after organ transplant, said Dr. Ghany.

A retrospective analysis by Wijarnpreecha and colleagues (Abstract 0003) showed that 12 or 24 weeks of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy resulted in an SVR12 for 24 out of 24 HCV-seropositive to HCV-seronegative liver transplants, while Durand and colleagues (Abstract 0042) showed that just 4 weeks of pre- and postexposure DAA prophylaxis resulted in SVR12s for 9 out of 9 HCV donor-positive, recipient-negative kidney transplants. Finally, Feld and coauthors (Abstract 0038) showed that preemptive ezetimibe with DAA therapy for 7 days prevented or rapidly cured infection in an experience that included 16 HCV-positive organ donors and 25 HCV-negative recipients.

“While these data are very encouraging, I think we do need to have long-term follow-up of these patients for graft survival, as well as the effect on wait times,” Dr. Ghany said.

Dr. Ghany reported no disclosures related to his presentation.

BOSTON – Treatment of persons who inject drugs, updates in pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral therapy, the benefits of sustained virologic response, and preemptive therapy in donor-positive organ transplantation topped the list of notable hepatitis C–related abstracts this year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

That’s according to Marc Ghany, MD, of the liver diseases branch of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, who gave a hepatitis C debrief to attendees on the final day of the meeting. Here are some of the meeting highlights as summarized by Dr. Ghany in this well-attended last-day session.
 

Treatment of HCV in people who inject drugs

Emerging data suggest it is feasible to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in persons who inject drugs (PWIDs); however, overcoming adherence issues remains a challenge, Dr. Ghany told attendees.

According to one study presented at AASLD by Dhiman and coauthors (Abstract 0165), decentralized care of PWIDs using direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy was safe and effective, even in those with cirrhosis. Authors demonstrated an “impressive” rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) of 91% by a modified intention-to-treat analysis, Dr. Ghany said; however, treatment interruptions were frequent and reduced the overall SVR rate in the study to 78%.

Other studies at the meeting looked at strategies to improve DAA efficacy in this population of patients at high risk of nonadherence, including use of a digital medicine program (Abstract 1554) and a model of care in which an internist-addiction medicine specialist evaluated opiate-dependent patients for HCV infection in a hepatology clinic (Abstract 1589).

Reinfection remains a focus of research in PWIDs. At this meeting, Janjua and coauthors reported that DAA-treated PWIDs in British Columbia had a threefold higher rate of reinfection versus non-PWIDs; however, there were no detected reinfections among PWIDs who had received uninterrupted opioid agonist therapy. “These data suggested that opioid agonist therapy should be given before and after HCV treatment in persons who inject drugs to prevent the infection,” Dr. Ghany said in his presentation.
 

Updates on pangenotypic DAA therapy

Jonas and coauthors (Abstract 1551) reported on the safety and efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8 weeks in children with chronic HCV infection enrolled in the ongoing phase 2/3 DORA study. The SVR12 was high, according to Dr. Ghany, at 96% overall, and consistent across age cohorts from 3 to less than 12 years of age.

“In the near future, we should have a safe and effective regimen (approved) for children 3 years or older,” Dr. Ghany said. “I think this will serve us well, as we try to eliminate HCV in children, who number up to 5 million cases worldwide.”

A short course of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is approved for patients with HCV and compensated cirrhosis, and data to support that was presented last year at The Liver Meeting; however, data were not presented on patients with genotype 3, the most difficult-to-treat genotype, Dr. Ghany said. That gap was filled at this year’s meeting with a report (Abstract LP9) showing SVR12 rates of 98.4% per protocol and 95.2% in intention-to-treat analysis.
 

Relationship of SVR to clinical outcomes

While the impact of sustained virologic response (SVR) on all-cause mortality is clear in patients with HCV, less is known about the effect of SVR on liver-related mortality and other outcomes, Dr. Ghany said. In one study presented here (Abstract 0039), based on analysis of a Veterans Affairs database of patients with chronic HCV infection, SVR was linked to a significant reduction in liver-related mortality, while in another report (Abstract 0037), SVR was associated with significant reductions in acute coronary syndromes, end-stage renal disease, and ischemic stroke.

Similarly, a multinational, propensity score–matched analysis (Abstract 0040) demonstrated that SVR had an impact on 5-year overall survival and liver-related survival in patients with HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). “For HCC patients who are candidates for HCC therapy, consideration should also be given to treating these individuals (with DAA therapy) because of the impact on overall survival,” Dr. Ghany said.
 

Preemptive DAA therapy in organ transplantation

Exciting new data show that preemptive therapy, given for short durations, appears to either prevent or cure HCV infection after organ transplant, said Dr. Ghany.

A retrospective analysis by Wijarnpreecha and colleagues (Abstract 0003) showed that 12 or 24 weeks of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy resulted in an SVR12 for 24 out of 24 HCV-seropositive to HCV-seronegative liver transplants, while Durand and colleagues (Abstract 0042) showed that just 4 weeks of pre- and postexposure DAA prophylaxis resulted in SVR12s for 9 out of 9 HCV donor-positive, recipient-negative kidney transplants. Finally, Feld and coauthors (Abstract 0038) showed that preemptive ezetimibe with DAA therapy for 7 days prevented or rapidly cured infection in an experience that included 16 HCV-positive organ donors and 25 HCV-negative recipients.

“While these data are very encouraging, I think we do need to have long-term follow-up of these patients for graft survival, as well as the effect on wait times,” Dr. Ghany said.

Dr. Ghany reported no disclosures related to his presentation.

BOSTON – Treatment of persons who inject drugs, updates in pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral therapy, the benefits of sustained virologic response, and preemptive therapy in donor-positive organ transplantation topped the list of notable hepatitis C–related abstracts this year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

That’s according to Marc Ghany, MD, of the liver diseases branch of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, who gave a hepatitis C debrief to attendees on the final day of the meeting. Here are some of the meeting highlights as summarized by Dr. Ghany in this well-attended last-day session.
 

Treatment of HCV in people who inject drugs

Emerging data suggest it is feasible to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in persons who inject drugs (PWIDs); however, overcoming adherence issues remains a challenge, Dr. Ghany told attendees.

According to one study presented at AASLD by Dhiman and coauthors (Abstract 0165), decentralized care of PWIDs using direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy was safe and effective, even in those with cirrhosis. Authors demonstrated an “impressive” rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) of 91% by a modified intention-to-treat analysis, Dr. Ghany said; however, treatment interruptions were frequent and reduced the overall SVR rate in the study to 78%.

Other studies at the meeting looked at strategies to improve DAA efficacy in this population of patients at high risk of nonadherence, including use of a digital medicine program (Abstract 1554) and a model of care in which an internist-addiction medicine specialist evaluated opiate-dependent patients for HCV infection in a hepatology clinic (Abstract 1589).

Reinfection remains a focus of research in PWIDs. At this meeting, Janjua and coauthors reported that DAA-treated PWIDs in British Columbia had a threefold higher rate of reinfection versus non-PWIDs; however, there were no detected reinfections among PWIDs who had received uninterrupted opioid agonist therapy. “These data suggested that opioid agonist therapy should be given before and after HCV treatment in persons who inject drugs to prevent the infection,” Dr. Ghany said in his presentation.
 

Updates on pangenotypic DAA therapy

Jonas and coauthors (Abstract 1551) reported on the safety and efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8 weeks in children with chronic HCV infection enrolled in the ongoing phase 2/3 DORA study. The SVR12 was high, according to Dr. Ghany, at 96% overall, and consistent across age cohorts from 3 to less than 12 years of age.

“In the near future, we should have a safe and effective regimen (approved) for children 3 years or older,” Dr. Ghany said. “I think this will serve us well, as we try to eliminate HCV in children, who number up to 5 million cases worldwide.”

A short course of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is approved for patients with HCV and compensated cirrhosis, and data to support that was presented last year at The Liver Meeting; however, data were not presented on patients with genotype 3, the most difficult-to-treat genotype, Dr. Ghany said. That gap was filled at this year’s meeting with a report (Abstract LP9) showing SVR12 rates of 98.4% per protocol and 95.2% in intention-to-treat analysis.
 

Relationship of SVR to clinical outcomes

While the impact of sustained virologic response (SVR) on all-cause mortality is clear in patients with HCV, less is known about the effect of SVR on liver-related mortality and other outcomes, Dr. Ghany said. In one study presented here (Abstract 0039), based on analysis of a Veterans Affairs database of patients with chronic HCV infection, SVR was linked to a significant reduction in liver-related mortality, while in another report (Abstract 0037), SVR was associated with significant reductions in acute coronary syndromes, end-stage renal disease, and ischemic stroke.

Similarly, a multinational, propensity score–matched analysis (Abstract 0040) demonstrated that SVR had an impact on 5-year overall survival and liver-related survival in patients with HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). “For HCC patients who are candidates for HCC therapy, consideration should also be given to treating these individuals (with DAA therapy) because of the impact on overall survival,” Dr. Ghany said.
 

Preemptive DAA therapy in organ transplantation

Exciting new data show that preemptive therapy, given for short durations, appears to either prevent or cure HCV infection after organ transplant, said Dr. Ghany.

A retrospective analysis by Wijarnpreecha and colleagues (Abstract 0003) showed that 12 or 24 weeks of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy resulted in an SVR12 for 24 out of 24 HCV-seropositive to HCV-seronegative liver transplants, while Durand and colleagues (Abstract 0042) showed that just 4 weeks of pre- and postexposure DAA prophylaxis resulted in SVR12s for 9 out of 9 HCV donor-positive, recipient-negative kidney transplants. Finally, Feld and coauthors (Abstract 0038) showed that preemptive ezetimibe with DAA therapy for 7 days prevented or rapidly cured infection in an experience that included 16 HCV-positive organ donors and 25 HCV-negative recipients.

“While these data are very encouraging, I think we do need to have long-term follow-up of these patients for graft survival, as well as the effect on wait times,” Dr. Ghany said.

Dr. Ghany reported no disclosures related to his presentation.

A new guideline has been published to update the 2007 guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

The practice guideline was jointly written by an ad hoc committee of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. CAP refers to a pneumonia infection that was acquired by a patient in his or her community. Decisions about which antibiotics to use to treat this kind of infection are based on risk factors for resistant organisms and the severity of illness.
 

Pathogens

Traditionally, CAP is caused by common bacterial pathogens that include Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Legionella species, Chlamydia pneumonia, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Risk factors for multidrug resistant pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa include previous infection with MRSA or P. aeruginosa, recent hospitalization, and requiring parenteral antibiotics in the last 90 days.

Defining severe community-acquired pneumonia

The health care–associated pneumonia, or HCAP, classification should no longer be used to determine empiric treatment. The recommendations for which antibiotics to use are linked to the severity of illness. Previously the site of treatment drove antibiotic selection, but since decision about the site of care can be affected by many considerations, the guidelines recommend using the CAP severity criteria. Severe CAP includes either one major or at least three minor criteria.

Major criteria are:

• Septic shock requiring vasopressors.
• Respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation.

Minor criteria are:

• Respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min.
• Ratio of arterial O₂ partial pressure to fractional inspired O₂ less than or equal to 250.
• Multilobar infiltrates.
• Confusion/disorientation.
• Uremia (blood urea nitrogen level greater than or equal to 20 mg/dL).
• Leukopenia (white blood cell count less than 4,000 cells/mcL).
• Thrombocytopenia (platelet count less than 100,000 mcL)
• Hypothermia (core temperature less than 36º C).
• Hypotension requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation.

Management and diagnostic testing

Clinicians should use the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and clinical judgment to guide the site of treatment for patients. Gram stain, sputum, and blood culture should not be routinely obtained in an outpatient setting. Legionella antigen should not be routinely obtained unless indicated by epidemiological factors. During influenza season, a rapid influenza assay, preferably a nucleic acid amplification test, should be obtained to help guide treatment.

For patients with severe CAP or risk factors for MRSA or P. aeruginosa, gram stain and culture and Legionella antigen should be obtained to manage antibiotic choices. Also, blood cultures should be obtained for these patients.

Empiric antibiotic therapy should be initiated based on clinical judgment and radiographic confirmation of CAP. Serum procalcitonin should not be used to assess initiation of antibiotic therapy.
 

Empiric antibiotic therapy

Healthy adults without comorbidities should be treated with monotherapy of either:

• Amoxicillin 1 g three times daily.
• OR doxycycline 100 mg twice daily.
• OR a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg on first day then 250 mg daily or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily or clarithromycin extended release 1,000 mg daily) only in areas with pneumococcal resistance to macrolides less than 25%.

Adults with comorbidities such as chronic heart, lung, liver, or renal disease; diabetes mellitus; alcoholism; malignancy; or asplenia should be treated with:

• Amoxicillin/clavulanate 500 mg/125 mg three times daily, or amoxicillin/ clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg twice daily, or 2,000 mg/125 mg twice daily, or a cephalosporin (cefpodoxime 200 mg twice daily or cefuroxime 500 mg twice daily); and a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg on first day then 250 mg daily, clarithromycin [500 mg twice daily or extended release 1,000 mg once daily]), or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. (Some experts recommend that the first dose of doxycycline should be 200 mg.)
• OR monotherapy with respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin 750 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily, or gemifloxacin 320 mg daily).

Inpatient pneumonia that is not severe, without risk factors for resistant organisms should be treated with:

• Beta-lactam (ampicillin 1 sulbactam 1.5-3 g every 6 h, cefotaxime 1-2 g every 8 h, ceftriaxone 1-2 g daily, or ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h) and a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg daily or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily).
• OR monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin 750 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily).

If there is a contraindication for the use of both a macrolide and a fluoroquinolone, then doxycycline can be used instead.

Severe inpatient pneumonia without risk factors for resistant organisms should be treated with combination therapy of either (agents and doses the same as above):

• Beta-lactam and macrolide.
• OR fluoroquinolone and beta-lactam.

It is recommended to not routinely add anaerobic coverage for suspected aspiration pneumonia unless lung abscess or empyema is suspected. Clinicians should identify risk factors for MRSA or P. aeruginosa before adding additional agents.

Duration of antibiotic therapy is determined by the patient achieving clinical stability with no less than 5 days of antibiotics. In adults with symptom resolution within 5-7 days, no additional follow-up chest imaging is recommended. If patients test positive for influenza, then anti-influenza treatment such as oseltamivir should be used in addition to antibiotics regardless of length of influenza symptoms before presentation.
 

The bottom line

CAP treatment should be based on severity of illness and risk factors for resistant organisms. Blood and sputum cultures are recommended only for patients with severe pneumonia. There have been important changes in the recommendations for antibiotic treatment of CAP, with high-dose amoxicillin recommended for most patients with CAP who are treated as outpatients. Patients who exhibit clinical stability should be treated for at least 5 days and do not require follow up imaging studies.

For a podcast of this guideline, go to iTunes and download the Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline podcast.

 

Reference

Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-e67.

Tina Chuong, DO, is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

A new guideline has been published to update the 2007 guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

The practice guideline was jointly written by an ad hoc committee of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. CAP refers to a pneumonia infection that was acquired by a patient in his or her community. Decisions about which antibiotics to use to treat this kind of infection are based on risk factors for resistant organisms and the severity of illness.
 

Pathogens

Traditionally, CAP is caused by common bacterial pathogens that include Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Legionella species, Chlamydia pneumonia, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Risk factors for multidrug resistant pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa include previous infection with MRSA or P. aeruginosa, recent hospitalization, and requiring parenteral antibiotics in the last 90 days.

Defining severe community-acquired pneumonia

The health care–associated pneumonia, or HCAP, classification should no longer be used to determine empiric treatment. The recommendations for which antibiotics to use are linked to the severity of illness. Previously the site of treatment drove antibiotic selection, but since decision about the site of care can be affected by many considerations, the guidelines recommend using the CAP severity criteria. Severe CAP includes either one major or at least three minor criteria.

Major criteria are:

• Septic shock requiring vasopressors.
• Respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation.

Minor criteria are:

• Respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min.
• Ratio of arterial O₂ partial pressure to fractional inspired O₂ less than or equal to 250.
• Multilobar infiltrates.
• Confusion/disorientation.
• Uremia (blood urea nitrogen level greater than or equal to 20 mg/dL).
• Leukopenia (white blood cell count less than 4,000 cells/mcL).
• Thrombocytopenia (platelet count less than 100,000 mcL)
• Hypothermia (core temperature less than 36º C).
• Hypotension requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation.

Management and diagnostic testing

Clinicians should use the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and clinical judgment to guide the site of treatment for patients. Gram stain, sputum, and blood culture should not be routinely obtained in an outpatient setting. Legionella antigen should not be routinely obtained unless indicated by epidemiological factors. During influenza season, a rapid influenza assay, preferably a nucleic acid amplification test, should be obtained to help guide treatment.

For patients with severe CAP or risk factors for MRSA or P. aeruginosa, gram stain and culture and Legionella antigen should be obtained to manage antibiotic choices. Also, blood cultures should be obtained for these patients.

Empiric antibiotic therapy should be initiated based on clinical judgment and radiographic confirmation of CAP. Serum procalcitonin should not be used to assess initiation of antibiotic therapy.
 

Empiric antibiotic therapy

Healthy adults without comorbidities should be treated with monotherapy of either:

• Amoxicillin 1 g three times daily.
• OR doxycycline 100 mg twice daily.
• OR a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg on first day then 250 mg daily or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily or clarithromycin extended release 1,000 mg daily) only in areas with pneumococcal resistance to macrolides less than 25%.

Adults with comorbidities such as chronic heart, lung, liver, or renal disease; diabetes mellitus; alcoholism; malignancy; or asplenia should be treated with:

• Amoxicillin/clavulanate 500 mg/125 mg three times daily, or amoxicillin/ clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg twice daily, or 2,000 mg/125 mg twice daily, or a cephalosporin (cefpodoxime 200 mg twice daily or cefuroxime 500 mg twice daily); and a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg on first day then 250 mg daily, clarithromycin [500 mg twice daily or extended release 1,000 mg once daily]), or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. (Some experts recommend that the first dose of doxycycline should be 200 mg.)
• OR monotherapy with respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin 750 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily, or gemifloxacin 320 mg daily).

Inpatient pneumonia that is not severe, without risk factors for resistant organisms should be treated with:

• Beta-lactam (ampicillin 1 sulbactam 1.5-3 g every 6 h, cefotaxime 1-2 g every 8 h, ceftriaxone 1-2 g daily, or ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h) and a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg daily or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily).
• OR monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin 750 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily).

If there is a contraindication for the use of both a macrolide and a fluoroquinolone, then doxycycline can be used instead.

Severe inpatient pneumonia without risk factors for resistant organisms should be treated with combination therapy of either (agents and doses the same as above):

• Beta-lactam and macrolide.
• OR fluoroquinolone and beta-lactam.

It is recommended to not routinely add anaerobic coverage for suspected aspiration pneumonia unless lung abscess or empyema is suspected. Clinicians should identify risk factors for MRSA or P. aeruginosa before adding additional agents.

Duration of antibiotic therapy is determined by the patient achieving clinical stability with no less than 5 days of antibiotics. In adults with symptom resolution within 5-7 days, no additional follow-up chest imaging is recommended. If patients test positive for influenza, then anti-influenza treatment such as oseltamivir should be used in addition to antibiotics regardless of length of influenza symptoms before presentation.
 

The bottom line

CAP treatment should be based on severity of illness and risk factors for resistant organisms. Blood and sputum cultures are recommended only for patients with severe pneumonia. There have been important changes in the recommendations for antibiotic treatment of CAP, with high-dose amoxicillin recommended for most patients with CAP who are treated as outpatients. Patients who exhibit clinical stability should be treated for at least 5 days and do not require follow up imaging studies.

For a podcast of this guideline, go to iTunes and download the Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline podcast.

 

Reference

Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-e67.

Tina Chuong, DO, is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

A new guideline has been published to update the 2007 guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

The practice guideline was jointly written by an ad hoc committee of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. CAP refers to a pneumonia infection that was acquired by a patient in his or her community. Decisions about which antibiotics to use to treat this kind of infection are based on risk factors for resistant organisms and the severity of illness.
 

Pathogens

Traditionally, CAP is caused by common bacterial pathogens that include Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Legionella species, Chlamydia pneumonia, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Risk factors for multidrug resistant pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa include previous infection with MRSA or P. aeruginosa, recent hospitalization, and requiring parenteral antibiotics in the last 90 days.

Defining severe community-acquired pneumonia

The health care–associated pneumonia, or HCAP, classification should no longer be used to determine empiric treatment. The recommendations for which antibiotics to use are linked to the severity of illness. Previously the site of treatment drove antibiotic selection, but since decision about the site of care can be affected by many considerations, the guidelines recommend using the CAP severity criteria. Severe CAP includes either one major or at least three minor criteria.

Major criteria are:

• Septic shock requiring vasopressors.
• Respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation.

Minor criteria are:

• Respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min.
• Ratio of arterial O₂ partial pressure to fractional inspired O₂ less than or equal to 250.
• Multilobar infiltrates.
• Confusion/disorientation.
• Uremia (blood urea nitrogen level greater than or equal to 20 mg/dL).
• Leukopenia (white blood cell count less than 4,000 cells/mcL).
• Thrombocytopenia (platelet count less than 100,000 mcL)
• Hypothermia (core temperature less than 36º C).
• Hypotension requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation.

Management and diagnostic testing

Clinicians should use the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI) and clinical judgment to guide the site of treatment for patients. Gram stain, sputum, and blood culture should not be routinely obtained in an outpatient setting. Legionella antigen should not be routinely obtained unless indicated by epidemiological factors. During influenza season, a rapid influenza assay, preferably a nucleic acid amplification test, should be obtained to help guide treatment.

For patients with severe CAP or risk factors for MRSA or P. aeruginosa, gram stain and culture and Legionella antigen should be obtained to manage antibiotic choices. Also, blood cultures should be obtained for these patients.

Empiric antibiotic therapy should be initiated based on clinical judgment and radiographic confirmation of CAP. Serum procalcitonin should not be used to assess initiation of antibiotic therapy.
 

Empiric antibiotic therapy

Healthy adults without comorbidities should be treated with monotherapy of either:

• Amoxicillin 1 g three times daily.
• OR doxycycline 100 mg twice daily.
• OR a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg on first day then 250 mg daily or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily or clarithromycin extended release 1,000 mg daily) only in areas with pneumococcal resistance to macrolides less than 25%.

Adults with comorbidities such as chronic heart, lung, liver, or renal disease; diabetes mellitus; alcoholism; malignancy; or asplenia should be treated with:

• Amoxicillin/clavulanate 500 mg/125 mg three times daily, or amoxicillin/ clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg twice daily, or 2,000 mg/125 mg twice daily, or a cephalosporin (cefpodoxime 200 mg twice daily or cefuroxime 500 mg twice daily); and a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg on first day then 250 mg daily, clarithromycin [500 mg twice daily or extended release 1,000 mg once daily]), or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. (Some experts recommend that the first dose of doxycycline should be 200 mg.)
• OR monotherapy with respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin 750 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily, or gemifloxacin 320 mg daily).

Inpatient pneumonia that is not severe, without risk factors for resistant organisms should be treated with:

• Beta-lactam (ampicillin 1 sulbactam 1.5-3 g every 6 h, cefotaxime 1-2 g every 8 h, ceftriaxone 1-2 g daily, or ceftaroline 600 mg every 12 h) and a macrolide (azithromycin 500 mg daily or clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily).
• OR monotherapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin 750 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily).

If there is a contraindication for the use of both a macrolide and a fluoroquinolone, then doxycycline can be used instead.

Severe inpatient pneumonia without risk factors for resistant organisms should be treated with combination therapy of either (agents and doses the same as above):

• Beta-lactam and macrolide.
• OR fluoroquinolone and beta-lactam.

It is recommended to not routinely add anaerobic coverage for suspected aspiration pneumonia unless lung abscess or empyema is suspected. Clinicians should identify risk factors for MRSA or P. aeruginosa before adding additional agents.

Duration of antibiotic therapy is determined by the patient achieving clinical stability with no less than 5 days of antibiotics. In adults with symptom resolution within 5-7 days, no additional follow-up chest imaging is recommended. If patients test positive for influenza, then anti-influenza treatment such as oseltamivir should be used in addition to antibiotics regardless of length of influenza symptoms before presentation.
 

The bottom line

CAP treatment should be based on severity of illness and risk factors for resistant organisms. Blood and sputum cultures are recommended only for patients with severe pneumonia. There have been important changes in the recommendations for antibiotic treatment of CAP, with high-dose amoxicillin recommended for most patients with CAP who are treated as outpatients. Patients who exhibit clinical stability should be treated for at least 5 days and do not require follow up imaging studies.

For a podcast of this guideline, go to iTunes and download the Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline podcast.

 

Reference

Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-e67.

Tina Chuong, DO, is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

SAN ANTONIO – Patients aged over age 75 years who are hospitalized for management of inflammatory bowel disease have a four to five times greater risk of inpatient mortality than those who are younger, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The magnitude of the age-related increased risk highlighted in this large national study was strikingly larger than the differential inpatient mortality between geriatric and nongeriatric patients hospitalized for conditions other than inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s a finding that reveals a major unmet need for improved systems of care for elderly hospitalized IBD patients, according to Dr. Schwartz, an internal medicine resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, it’s our hope that this study will provide some insight to drive efforts to improve standardized guideline-directed therapy and propose interventions to help close what I think is a very important gap in clinical care,” he said.

It’s well established that a second peak of IBD diagnoses occurs in 50- to 70-year-olds. At present, roughly 30% of all individuals carrying the diagnosis of IBD are over age 65, and with the graying of the baby-boomer population, this proportion is climbing.

Dr. Schwartz presented a study of the National Inpatient Sample for 2016, which is a representative sample comprising 20% of all U.S. hospital discharges for that year, the most recent year for which the data are available. The study population included all 71,040 patients hospitalized for acute management of Crohn’s disease or its immediate complications, of whom 10,095 were aged over age 75 years, as well as the 35,950 patients hospitalized for ulcerative colitis, 8,285 of whom were over 75.

Inpatient mortality occurred in 1.5% of the geriatric admissions, compared with 0.2% of nongeriatric admissions for Crohn’s disease. Similarly, the inpatient mortality rate in geriatric patients with ulcerative colitis was 1.0% versus 0.1% in patients under age 75 hospitalized for ulcerative colitis.

There are lots of reasons why the management of geriatric patients with IBD is particularly challenging, Dr. Schwartz noted. They have a higher burden of comorbid conditions, worse nutritional status, and increased risks of infection and cancer. In a regression analysis that attempted to control for such confounders using the Elixhauser mortality index, the nongeriatric Crohn’s disease patients were an adjusted 75% less likely to die in the hospital than those who were older. Nongeriatric ulcerative colitis patients were 81% less likely to die than geriatric patients with the disease. In contrast, nongeriatric patients admitted for reasons other than IBD had only an adjusted 50% lower risk of inpatient mortality than those who were older than 75.

Of note, in this analysis adjusted for confounders, there was no difference between geriatric and nongeriatric IBD patients in terms of resource utilization as reflected in average length of stay and hospital charges, Dr. Schwartz continued.

Asked if he could shed light on any specific complications that drove the age-related disparity in inpatient mortality in the IBD population, the physician replied that he and his coinvestigators were thwarted in their effort to do so because the inpatient mortality of 1.0%-1.5% was so low that further breakdown as to causes of death would have been statistically unreliable. It might be possible to do so successfully by combining several years of National Inpatient Sample data. That being said, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that cardiovascular complications are an important contributor, he added.

Dr. Schwartz reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Patients aged over age 75 years who are hospitalized for management of inflammatory bowel disease have a four to five times greater risk of inpatient mortality than those who are younger, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The magnitude of the age-related increased risk highlighted in this large national study was strikingly larger than the differential inpatient mortality between geriatric and nongeriatric patients hospitalized for conditions other than inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s a finding that reveals a major unmet need for improved systems of care for elderly hospitalized IBD patients, according to Dr. Schwartz, an internal medicine resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, it’s our hope that this study will provide some insight to drive efforts to improve standardized guideline-directed therapy and propose interventions to help close what I think is a very important gap in clinical care,” he said.

It’s well established that a second peak of IBD diagnoses occurs in 50- to 70-year-olds. At present, roughly 30% of all individuals carrying the diagnosis of IBD are over age 65, and with the graying of the baby-boomer population, this proportion is climbing.

Dr. Schwartz presented a study of the National Inpatient Sample for 2016, which is a representative sample comprising 20% of all U.S. hospital discharges for that year, the most recent year for which the data are available. The study population included all 71,040 patients hospitalized for acute management of Crohn’s disease or its immediate complications, of whom 10,095 were aged over age 75 years, as well as the 35,950 patients hospitalized for ulcerative colitis, 8,285 of whom were over 75.

Inpatient mortality occurred in 1.5% of the geriatric admissions, compared with 0.2% of nongeriatric admissions for Crohn’s disease. Similarly, the inpatient mortality rate in geriatric patients with ulcerative colitis was 1.0% versus 0.1% in patients under age 75 hospitalized for ulcerative colitis.

There are lots of reasons why the management of geriatric patients with IBD is particularly challenging, Dr. Schwartz noted. They have a higher burden of comorbid conditions, worse nutritional status, and increased risks of infection and cancer. In a regression analysis that attempted to control for such confounders using the Elixhauser mortality index, the nongeriatric Crohn’s disease patients were an adjusted 75% less likely to die in the hospital than those who were older. Nongeriatric ulcerative colitis patients were 81% less likely to die than geriatric patients with the disease. In contrast, nongeriatric patients admitted for reasons other than IBD had only an adjusted 50% lower risk of inpatient mortality than those who were older than 75.

Of note, in this analysis adjusted for confounders, there was no difference between geriatric and nongeriatric IBD patients in terms of resource utilization as reflected in average length of stay and hospital charges, Dr. Schwartz continued.

Asked if he could shed light on any specific complications that drove the age-related disparity in inpatient mortality in the IBD population, the physician replied that he and his coinvestigators were thwarted in their effort to do so because the inpatient mortality of 1.0%-1.5% was so low that further breakdown as to causes of death would have been statistically unreliable. It might be possible to do so successfully by combining several years of National Inpatient Sample data. That being said, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that cardiovascular complications are an important contributor, he added.

Dr. Schwartz reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – Patients aged over age 75 years who are hospitalized for management of inflammatory bowel disease have a four to five times greater risk of inpatient mortality than those who are younger, Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The magnitude of the age-related increased risk highlighted in this large national study was strikingly larger than the differential inpatient mortality between geriatric and nongeriatric patients hospitalized for conditions other than inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s a finding that reveals a major unmet need for improved systems of care for elderly hospitalized IBD patients, according to Dr. Schwartz, an internal medicine resident at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

“Given the high prevalence of IBD patients that require inpatient admission, as well as the rapidly aging nature of the U.S. population, it’s our hope that this study will provide some insight to drive efforts to improve standardized guideline-directed therapy and propose interventions to help close what I think is a very important gap in clinical care,” he said.

It’s well established that a second peak of IBD diagnoses occurs in 50- to 70-year-olds. At present, roughly 30% of all individuals carrying the diagnosis of IBD are over age 65, and with the graying of the baby-boomer population, this proportion is climbing.

Dr. Schwartz presented a study of the National Inpatient Sample for 2016, which is a representative sample comprising 20% of all U.S. hospital discharges for that year, the most recent year for which the data are available. The study population included all 71,040 patients hospitalized for acute management of Crohn’s disease or its immediate complications, of whom 10,095 were aged over age 75 years, as well as the 35,950 patients hospitalized for ulcerative colitis, 8,285 of whom were over 75.

Inpatient mortality occurred in 1.5% of the geriatric admissions, compared with 0.2% of nongeriatric admissions for Crohn’s disease. Similarly, the inpatient mortality rate in geriatric patients with ulcerative colitis was 1.0% versus 0.1% in patients under age 75 hospitalized for ulcerative colitis.

There are lots of reasons why the management of geriatric patients with IBD is particularly challenging, Dr. Schwartz noted. They have a higher burden of comorbid conditions, worse nutritional status, and increased risks of infection and cancer. In a regression analysis that attempted to control for such confounders using the Elixhauser mortality index, the nongeriatric Crohn’s disease patients were an adjusted 75% less likely to die in the hospital than those who were older. Nongeriatric ulcerative colitis patients were 81% less likely to die than geriatric patients with the disease. In contrast, nongeriatric patients admitted for reasons other than IBD had only an adjusted 50% lower risk of inpatient mortality than those who were older than 75.

Of note, in this analysis adjusted for confounders, there was no difference between geriatric and nongeriatric IBD patients in terms of resource utilization as reflected in average length of stay and hospital charges, Dr. Schwartz continued.

Asked if he could shed light on any specific complications that drove the age-related disparity in inpatient mortality in the IBD population, the physician replied that he and his coinvestigators were thwarted in their effort to do so because the inpatient mortality of 1.0%-1.5% was so low that further breakdown as to causes of death would have been statistically unreliable. It might be possible to do so successfully by combining several years of National Inpatient Sample data. That being said, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that cardiovascular complications are an important contributor, he added.

Dr. Schwartz reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

The hyperkalemia that commonly occurs in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure does not affect outcomes, but it can lead to treatment changes that can in turn raise the risk of mortality.

That’s according to an analysis of data from 1,589 patients in the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A₁ Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) (N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1419-28).

In PROTECT, patients with acute heart failure and mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min) were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or rolofylline, a selective A₁ adenosine receptor antagonist that is no longer in development. Because of the meticulous recording of potassium levels in PROTECT, investigators led by Joost C. Beusekamp of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, used the data to examine the relations between incident hyperkalemia and changes in treatment, focusing on mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs).

They found that of the 35% of the patients who developed hyperkalemia at least once during hospitalization, defined as at least one episode of potassium above 5.0 mEq/L, 53% had been taking MRAs before hospitalization. And of those patients who been taking MRAs before hospitalization, 35% and 44% developed incident hypokalemia and had “a normal potassium” level, respectively. The hyperkalemia patients were also more likely to have their MRAs down-titrated (15%) during their stay than were those with low (8%) and normal (9%) potassium levels.

No significant association was found between in-hospital potassium levels and 180-day mortality or a composite of rehospitalization for cardiovascular or renal causes or all-cause death at 30 days (data not provided). However, there was a significant link between MRA dose reductions and 180-day mortality in a multivariate analysis (HR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.60; P = 0.008).

“Incident hyperkalemia was strongly associated with down-titration of MRA therapy which was, in turn, associated with a worse prognosis,” the investigators concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.010.

The hyperkalemia that commonly occurs in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure does not affect outcomes, but it can lead to treatment changes that can in turn raise the risk of mortality.

That’s according to an analysis of data from 1,589 patients in the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A₁ Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) (N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1419-28).

In PROTECT, patients with acute heart failure and mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min) were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or rolofylline, a selective A₁ adenosine receptor antagonist that is no longer in development. Because of the meticulous recording of potassium levels in PROTECT, investigators led by Joost C. Beusekamp of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, used the data to examine the relations between incident hyperkalemia and changes in treatment, focusing on mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs).

They found that of the 35% of the patients who developed hyperkalemia at least once during hospitalization, defined as at least one episode of potassium above 5.0 mEq/L, 53% had been taking MRAs before hospitalization. And of those patients who been taking MRAs before hospitalization, 35% and 44% developed incident hypokalemia and had “a normal potassium” level, respectively. The hyperkalemia patients were also more likely to have their MRAs down-titrated (15%) during their stay than were those with low (8%) and normal (9%) potassium levels.

No significant association was found between in-hospital potassium levels and 180-day mortality or a composite of rehospitalization for cardiovascular or renal causes or all-cause death at 30 days (data not provided). However, there was a significant link between MRA dose reductions and 180-day mortality in a multivariate analysis (HR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.60; P = 0.008).

“Incident hyperkalemia was strongly associated with down-titration of MRA therapy which was, in turn, associated with a worse prognosis,” the investigators concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.010.

The hyperkalemia that commonly occurs in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure does not affect outcomes, but it can lead to treatment changes that can in turn raise the risk of mortality.

That’s according to an analysis of data from 1,589 patients in the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A₁ Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function) (N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1419-28).

In PROTECT, patients with acute heart failure and mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min) were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or rolofylline, a selective A₁ adenosine receptor antagonist that is no longer in development. Because of the meticulous recording of potassium levels in PROTECT, investigators led by Joost C. Beusekamp of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, used the data to examine the relations between incident hyperkalemia and changes in treatment, focusing on mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs).

They found that of the 35% of the patients who developed hyperkalemia at least once during hospitalization, defined as at least one episode of potassium above 5.0 mEq/L, 53% had been taking MRAs before hospitalization. And of those patients who been taking MRAs before hospitalization, 35% and 44% developed incident hypokalemia and had “a normal potassium” level, respectively. The hyperkalemia patients were also more likely to have their MRAs down-titrated (15%) during their stay than were those with low (8%) and normal (9%) potassium levels.

No significant association was found between in-hospital potassium levels and 180-day mortality or a composite of rehospitalization for cardiovascular or renal causes or all-cause death at 30 days (data not provided). However, there was a significant link between MRA dose reductions and 180-day mortality in a multivariate analysis (HR, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.60; P = 0.008).

“Incident hyperkalemia was strongly associated with down-titration of MRA therapy which was, in turn, associated with a worse prognosis,” the investigators concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.07.010.

PHM19 session

Apps for busy pediatric hospitalists 2.0

Presenters

Tosin Adeyanju, MD, FAAP

Alexander Hogan, MD

Jane Im, MD, FAAP

Kim O’Hara, MD

Michael Tchou, MD, FAAP
 

Session summary

This presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 started with the sharing of learning tools to help physicians stay current and organized with the ever-expanding body of medical literature.

The instructors shared content aggregators, such as Read by QxMD, that allow the user to follow multiple journals and highlight new articles based on the user’s preferences and chosen keywords. They also shared reference managers, such as Mendeley, which allows users to organize, store, and access their literature library from anywhere and can even be used to simplify citations and bibliographies in articles.

The presenters shared resources and applications that can be used to quickly access information on mobile devices. Applications, such as MDCalc and the CDC STD Tx Guide, can allow users to reference clinical calculators and treatment courses for teaching at the bedside. The presenters also introduced pharmaceutical applications like GoodRx, an application that allows patients and physicians to compare drug prices at various pharmacies. They also introduced the audience to Formulary Search by MMIT that helps users determine which medications are covered by an insurance plan. They also shared some applications that can help users deal with emergencies, like Ped Guide and Pedi Crisis. These apps can help users review emergency algorithms, dose emergency medications, and determine the sizes of emergency equipment.

The presenters closed by sharing teaching applications that allow users to increase interactions with presentation audiences or learners. Teaching tools like Kahoot! and Poll Everywhere allow users to gauge their audiences’ understanding of material. Online software, such as Slack.com and Microsoft.com, allows for collaboration and file sharing across institutions and integrate with many other services.
 

Key takeaways

• Content aggregators and reference managers help users organize and access literature from anywhere.

• Teaching tools encourage audience participation, immediate assessment of learners.

• Online software tools allow for easy collaboration and file sharing across institutions and easily integrate with many other services.

Dr. Gupta is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.

PHM19 session

Apps for busy pediatric hospitalists 2.0

Presenters

Tosin Adeyanju, MD, FAAP

Alexander Hogan, MD

Jane Im, MD, FAAP

Kim O’Hara, MD

Michael Tchou, MD, FAAP
 

Session summary

This presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 started with the sharing of learning tools to help physicians stay current and organized with the ever-expanding body of medical literature.

The instructors shared content aggregators, such as Read by QxMD, that allow the user to follow multiple journals and highlight new articles based on the user’s preferences and chosen keywords. They also shared reference managers, such as Mendeley, which allows users to organize, store, and access their literature library from anywhere and can even be used to simplify citations and bibliographies in articles.

The presenters shared resources and applications that can be used to quickly access information on mobile devices. Applications, such as MDCalc and the CDC STD Tx Guide, can allow users to reference clinical calculators and treatment courses for teaching at the bedside. The presenters also introduced pharmaceutical applications like GoodRx, an application that allows patients and physicians to compare drug prices at various pharmacies. They also introduced the audience to Formulary Search by MMIT that helps users determine which medications are covered by an insurance plan. They also shared some applications that can help users deal with emergencies, like Ped Guide and Pedi Crisis. These apps can help users review emergency algorithms, dose emergency medications, and determine the sizes of emergency equipment.

The presenters closed by sharing teaching applications that allow users to increase interactions with presentation audiences or learners. Teaching tools like Kahoot! and Poll Everywhere allow users to gauge their audiences’ understanding of material. Online software, such as Slack.com and Microsoft.com, allows for collaboration and file sharing across institutions and integrate with many other services.
 

Key takeaways

• Content aggregators and reference managers help users organize and access literature from anywhere.

• Teaching tools encourage audience participation, immediate assessment of learners.

• Online software tools allow for easy collaboration and file sharing across institutions and easily integrate with many other services.

Dr. Gupta is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.

PHM19 session

Apps for busy pediatric hospitalists 2.0

Presenters

Tosin Adeyanju, MD, FAAP

Alexander Hogan, MD

Jane Im, MD, FAAP

Kim O’Hara, MD

Michael Tchou, MD, FAAP
 

Session summary

This presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 started with the sharing of learning tools to help physicians stay current and organized with the ever-expanding body of medical literature.

The instructors shared content aggregators, such as Read by QxMD, that allow the user to follow multiple journals and highlight new articles based on the user’s preferences and chosen keywords. They also shared reference managers, such as Mendeley, which allows users to organize, store, and access their literature library from anywhere and can even be used to simplify citations and bibliographies in articles.

The presenters shared resources and applications that can be used to quickly access information on mobile devices. Applications, such as MDCalc and the CDC STD Tx Guide, can allow users to reference clinical calculators and treatment courses for teaching at the bedside. The presenters also introduced pharmaceutical applications like GoodRx, an application that allows patients and physicians to compare drug prices at various pharmacies. They also introduced the audience to Formulary Search by MMIT that helps users determine which medications are covered by an insurance plan. They also shared some applications that can help users deal with emergencies, like Ped Guide and Pedi Crisis. These apps can help users review emergency algorithms, dose emergency medications, and determine the sizes of emergency equipment.

The presenters closed by sharing teaching applications that allow users to increase interactions with presentation audiences or learners. Teaching tools like Kahoot! and Poll Everywhere allow users to gauge their audiences’ understanding of material. Online software, such as Slack.com and Microsoft.com, allows for collaboration and file sharing across institutions and integrate with many other services.
 

Key takeaways

• Content aggregators and reference managers help users organize and access literature from anywhere.

• Teaching tools encourage audience participation, immediate assessment of learners.

• Online software tools allow for easy collaboration and file sharing across institutions and easily integrate with many other services.

Dr. Gupta is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.

CHICAGO – A large Danish registry-based study has confirmed an increased risk of acute pancreatitis for patients taking certain antithyroid drugs.

After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.

Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, said that the European Medicines Agency has noted a few postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving this drug, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.

However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.

During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.

Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.

To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.

The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).

The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.

Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.

Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.

“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.

Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Graves disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.

He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.

Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.
 

SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .

CHICAGO – A large Danish registry-based study has confirmed an increased risk of acute pancreatitis for patients taking certain antithyroid drugs.

After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.

Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, said that the European Medicines Agency has noted a few postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving this drug, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.

However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.

During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.

Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.

To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.

The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).

The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.

Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.

Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.

“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.

Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Graves disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.

He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.

Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.
 

SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .

CHICAGO – A large Danish registry-based study has confirmed an increased risk of acute pancreatitis for patients taking certain antithyroid drugs.

After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.

Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, said that the European Medicines Agency has noted a few postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving this drug, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.

However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.

During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.

Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.

To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.

The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).

The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.

Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.

Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.

“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.

Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Graves disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.

He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.

Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.
 

SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .

“Do you vape?” may be one of the most important questions health care can providers can ask patients who present with respiratory symptoms this winter.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

Vaping-related lung injuries cause symptoms such as fever, cough, headache, and fatigue, making it challenging to differentiate them from influenza or respiratory infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Accordingly, providers need to ask patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about their use of e-cigarette or vaping products, according to one several new CDC recommendations that appear in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review.

“E-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment,” the CDC report reads.

As of Nov. 13, there have been 2,172 cases of EVALI reported to CDC, of which 42 (1.9%) have been fatal. Most of the patients with EVALI have been white (79%), male (68%), and under the age of 35 years (77%), according to CDC data.

Although vitamin E acetate was recently implicated as a potential cause of EVALI, the agency said evidence is “not sufficient” at this point in their investigation to rule out other chemicals of potential concern.

“Many different substances and product sources are still under investigation, and it might be that there is more than one cause of this outbreak,” CDC said.

Further recommendations

Beyond asking about vape use, providers should evaluate suspected EVALI with pulse oximetry and chest imaging, and should consider outpatient management for patients who are clinically stable, according to the recommendations.

The agency said influenza testing should be “strongly considered,” especially during influenza season, given that EVALI is a diagnosis of exclusion and that it may co-occur with other respiratory illnesses. Antimicrobials (including antivirals) should be given as warranted, they added.

Corticosteroids may be helpful in treating EVALI, but may worsen respiratory infections typically seen in outpatients, and so should be prescribed with caution in the outpatient setting, the CDC recommended.

Behavioral counseling, addiction treatment services, and Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications are recommended to help patients quit vaping or e-cigarette products, CDC said.

Health care providers should emphasize the importance of an annual flu shot for all patients 6 months of age or older, including those who use e-cigarette or vaping products, according to the agency.

“It is not known whether patients with EVALI are at higher risk for severe complications of influenza or other respiratory infections,” the report reads.

Blame it on vitamin E? THC? Other?

The report details how, as previously reported, vitamin E acetate was detected in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from 29 patients with EVALI. Although other chemicals could contribute to EVALI, that finding provided “direct evidence” of vitamin E acetate at the primary site of injury, according to CDC.

Most patients with EVALI, 83%, have reported using a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette or vaping product, according to CDC, while 61% reported using a nicotine-containing product.

Based on that, CDC recommended that people avoid using THC-containing products. However, the agency cautioned that the specific cause or causes of EVALI remain to be elucidated.

“The only way for persons to assure that they are not at risk is to consider refraining from use of all e-cigarette, or vaping, products while this investigation continues,” CDC said in the report.

The need for this additional clinical guidance was assessed in anticipation of the seasonal uptick in influenza and other respiratory infections, according to the CDC, which said the recommendations were based in part on individual clinical perspectives from nine national experts who participated in a previously published clinical guidance on managing patients with EVALI.

SOURCES: Jatlaoui TC et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 19. doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6846e2; Chatham-Stephens K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 19. doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6846e1.

“Do you vape?” may be one of the most important questions health care can providers can ask patients who present with respiratory symptoms this winter.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

Vaping-related lung injuries cause symptoms such as fever, cough, headache, and fatigue, making it challenging to differentiate them from influenza or respiratory infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Accordingly, providers need to ask patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about their use of e-cigarette or vaping products, according to one several new CDC recommendations that appear in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review.

“E-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment,” the CDC report reads.

As of Nov. 13, there have been 2,172 cases of EVALI reported to CDC, of which 42 (1.9%) have been fatal. Most of the patients with EVALI have been white (79%), male (68%), and under the age of 35 years (77%), according to CDC data.

Although vitamin E acetate was recently implicated as a potential cause of EVALI, the agency said evidence is “not sufficient” at this point in their investigation to rule out other chemicals of potential concern.

“Many different substances and product sources are still under investigation, and it might be that there is more than one cause of this outbreak,” CDC said.

Further recommendations

Beyond asking about vape use, providers should evaluate suspected EVALI with pulse oximetry and chest imaging, and should consider outpatient management for patients who are clinically stable, according to the recommendations.

The agency said influenza testing should be “strongly considered,” especially during influenza season, given that EVALI is a diagnosis of exclusion and that it may co-occur with other respiratory illnesses. Antimicrobials (including antivirals) should be given as warranted, they added.

Corticosteroids may be helpful in treating EVALI, but may worsen respiratory infections typically seen in outpatients, and so should be prescribed with caution in the outpatient setting, the CDC recommended.

Behavioral counseling, addiction treatment services, and Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications are recommended to help patients quit vaping or e-cigarette products, CDC said.

Health care providers should emphasize the importance of an annual flu shot for all patients 6 months of age or older, including those who use e-cigarette or vaping products, according to the agency.

“It is not known whether patients with EVALI are at higher risk for severe complications of influenza or other respiratory infections,” the report reads.

Blame it on vitamin E? THC? Other?

The report details how, as previously reported, vitamin E acetate was detected in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from 29 patients with EVALI. Although other chemicals could contribute to EVALI, that finding provided “direct evidence” of vitamin E acetate at the primary site of injury, according to CDC.

Most patients with EVALI, 83%, have reported using a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette or vaping product, according to CDC, while 61% reported using a nicotine-containing product.

Based on that, CDC recommended that people avoid using THC-containing products. However, the agency cautioned that the specific cause or causes of EVALI remain to be elucidated.

“The only way for persons to assure that they are not at risk is to consider refraining from use of all e-cigarette, or vaping, products while this investigation continues,” CDC said in the report.

The need for this additional clinical guidance was assessed in anticipation of the seasonal uptick in influenza and other respiratory infections, according to the CDC, which said the recommendations were based in part on individual clinical perspectives from nine national experts who participated in a previously published clinical guidance on managing patients with EVALI.

SOURCES: Jatlaoui TC et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 19. doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6846e2; Chatham-Stephens K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 19. doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6846e1.

“Do you vape?” may be one of the most important questions health care can providers can ask patients who present with respiratory symptoms this winter.

mauro grigollo/Thinkstock

Vaping-related lung injuries cause symptoms such as fever, cough, headache, and fatigue, making it challenging to differentiate them from influenza or respiratory infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Accordingly, providers need to ask patients with respiratory, gastrointestinal, or constitutional symptoms about their use of e-cigarette or vaping products, according to one several new CDC recommendations that appear in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review.

“E-cigarette or vaping product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) remains a diagnosis of exclusion because, at present, no specific test or marker exists for its diagnosis, and evaluation should be guided by clinical judgment,” the CDC report reads.

As of Nov. 13, there have been 2,172 cases of EVALI reported to CDC, of which 42 (1.9%) have been fatal. Most of the patients with EVALI have been white (79%), male (68%), and under the age of 35 years (77%), according to CDC data.

Although vitamin E acetate was recently implicated as a potential cause of EVALI, the agency said evidence is “not sufficient” at this point in their investigation to rule out other chemicals of potential concern.

“Many different substances and product sources are still under investigation, and it might be that there is more than one cause of this outbreak,” CDC said.

Further recommendations

Beyond asking about vape use, providers should evaluate suspected EVALI with pulse oximetry and chest imaging, and should consider outpatient management for patients who are clinically stable, according to the recommendations.

The agency said influenza testing should be “strongly considered,” especially during influenza season, given that EVALI is a diagnosis of exclusion and that it may co-occur with other respiratory illnesses. Antimicrobials (including antivirals) should be given as warranted, they added.

Corticosteroids may be helpful in treating EVALI, but may worsen respiratory infections typically seen in outpatients, and so should be prescribed with caution in the outpatient setting, the CDC recommended.

Behavioral counseling, addiction treatment services, and Food and Drug Administration–approved cessation medications are recommended to help patients quit vaping or e-cigarette products, CDC said.

Health care providers should emphasize the importance of an annual flu shot for all patients 6 months of age or older, including those who use e-cigarette or vaping products, according to the agency.

“It is not known whether patients with EVALI are at higher risk for severe complications of influenza or other respiratory infections,” the report reads.

Blame it on vitamin E? THC? Other?

The report details how, as previously reported, vitamin E acetate was detected in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from 29 patients with EVALI. Although other chemicals could contribute to EVALI, that finding provided “direct evidence” of vitamin E acetate at the primary site of injury, according to CDC.

Most patients with EVALI, 83%, have reported using a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette or vaping product, according to CDC, while 61% reported using a nicotine-containing product.

Based on that, CDC recommended that people avoid using THC-containing products. However, the agency cautioned that the specific cause or causes of EVALI remain to be elucidated.

“The only way for persons to assure that they are not at risk is to consider refraining from use of all e-cigarette, or vaping, products while this investigation continues,” CDC said in the report.

The need for this additional clinical guidance was assessed in anticipation of the seasonal uptick in influenza and other respiratory infections, according to the CDC, which said the recommendations were based in part on individual clinical perspectives from nine national experts who participated in a previously published clinical guidance on managing patients with EVALI.

SOURCES: Jatlaoui TC et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 19. doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6846e2; Chatham-Stephens K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 19. doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6846e1.

It’s always important for everyone to remember why we document things in the chart so that we are on the same page and ultimately do what is best for the patient. We document for insurance companies to prove the need for hospitalization, for legal purposes, and for other clinicians – to clearly communicate the acuity of each patient.

One of the diagnoses that we can often forget to use is acute respiratory failure. Documenting acute respiratory failure matters, regardless if it is, or is not, the primary diagnosis; it increases the estimated Length of Stay (LOS), Severity of Illness (SOI), and Risk of Mortality (ROM). This diagnosis adds an additional degree of specificity to patients with pneumonia, pleural effusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, etc. While we may be hesitant to document this (perhaps feeling that this applies only to patients who are intubated in the ICU), the reader will hopefully have more confidence using it after reviewing the diagnostic criteria.

Acute respiratory failure can stem from impaired oxygenation or impaired ventilation. The following are some examples that follow these principles:

• Impaired oxygenation. Can be seen in pneumonia, pulmonary edema, and pulmonary embolism, and can present as a low O₂ saturation or a low pO₂ on an arterial blood gas (ABG) test.
• Impaired ventilation. Can be seen in COPD or asthma where there is increased effort to ventilate the lungs, which can lead to impaired CO₂ exchange and subsequent acidosis.

One needs to have two of the following three criteria to make a formal diagnosis of acute respiratory failure:

• pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (hypoxemia).
• pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg (hypercapnia) with pH less than 7.35.
• Signs and symptoms of acute respiratory distress.

One may think that it would be difficult to meet criteria without an ABG. Although an ABG is the standard, a patient meets criteria 1 without a blood gas if an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% is documented. Therefore, in most cases, if you have a documented oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% on room air with a physical exam showing signs of respiratory distress, your patient will qualify for the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. This negates the need to always have an ABG.

It is important to document the symptoms and physical exam findings that go along with the diagnosis. Patients should have tachypnea with a respiratory rate (RR) greater than 20 or a decreased rate less than 10. They may have wheezing, difficulty moving air, nasal flaring, and accessory muscle use. All of these findings are extremely helpful to validate the diagnosis and would make it extremely difficult for it to be rejected by a biller or insurance company.

These patients are often given supplemental oxygen (nasal cannula, Venturi mask, non-rebreather) and other treatments including steroids, inhaled bronchodilators, mucolytics, and respiratory therapy. Documenting these interventions in your plans can assist reviewers trying to understand your thought process in the treatment of the patient. If your patient has to be initiated on bilevel positive airway pressure (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), this almost always means they have acute respiratory failure.

In the two tables accompanying this article, we see some examples of how documenting acute respiratory failure can improve LOS, ROM, SOI, and reimbursement. The number at the top is based off of a specific DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) that is used by coders.

Let’s say we have a 58-year-old male presenting with chest pain, shortness of breath, and concern for unstable angina. Given his symptoms, he is being taken to the cardiac catheterization lab. If we note only that he was hypoxic and required 3L for an O₂ saturation of 94%, one can see the ROM, SOI, estimated LOS, and reimbursement in the first column. However, if we write that his oxygen saturation on room air is 87%, he is using intercostal muscles to breathe, and he has marked dyspnea with conversation, we can say that he has acute respiratory failure. Making this distinction increases his expected LOS by almost 4 days and nearly doubles reimbursement.



For the second example, we have an 81-year-old female with diabetes type 2, hypertension, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure who presents with an acute systolic CHF exacerbation. The patient is saturating 85% on room air, has tachypnea (RR 34), and was given large doses of intravenous furosemide in the emergency department. She is stabilized with improvement in her respiratory rate and can go to the floor, but by documenting that this was acute respiratory failure, one can again see the significant improvements in the projected LOS, ROM, and reimbursement as opposed to documenting hypoxia. This has huge implications for our hospitals, and we should continue to strive to document this as clearly as possible.

 

Key take-home points for hospitalists

• Document accurately, including any comorbid conditions and major comorbid conditions that are applicable.
• Acute respiratory failure comes from impaired oxygenation, impaired ventilation, or both.
• One needs to document two of the three criteria to formally diagnose acute respiratory failure: pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (or room air oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90%), pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg with pH less than 7.35, and signs/symptoms of respiratory distress.
• Document physical exam findings that correlate with acute respiratory failure (RR greater than 20 or less than 10, wheezing, nasal flaring, accessory muscle use, etc).
• If your patient has to be initiated on BIPAP (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), they likely have acute respiratory failure.

Dr. DeCaro is a hospitalist and medical director for care coordination at Emory University in Atlanta.

It’s always important for everyone to remember why we document things in the chart so that we are on the same page and ultimately do what is best for the patient. We document for insurance companies to prove the need for hospitalization, for legal purposes, and for other clinicians – to clearly communicate the acuity of each patient.

One of the diagnoses that we can often forget to use is acute respiratory failure. Documenting acute respiratory failure matters, regardless if it is, or is not, the primary diagnosis; it increases the estimated Length of Stay (LOS), Severity of Illness (SOI), and Risk of Mortality (ROM). This diagnosis adds an additional degree of specificity to patients with pneumonia, pleural effusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, etc. While we may be hesitant to document this (perhaps feeling that this applies only to patients who are intubated in the ICU), the reader will hopefully have more confidence using it after reviewing the diagnostic criteria.

Acute respiratory failure can stem from impaired oxygenation or impaired ventilation. The following are some examples that follow these principles:

• Impaired oxygenation. Can be seen in pneumonia, pulmonary edema, and pulmonary embolism, and can present as a low O₂ saturation or a low pO₂ on an arterial blood gas (ABG) test.
• Impaired ventilation. Can be seen in COPD or asthma where there is increased effort to ventilate the lungs, which can lead to impaired CO₂ exchange and subsequent acidosis.

One needs to have two of the following three criteria to make a formal diagnosis of acute respiratory failure:

• pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (hypoxemia).
• pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg (hypercapnia) with pH less than 7.35.
• Signs and symptoms of acute respiratory distress.

One may think that it would be difficult to meet criteria without an ABG. Although an ABG is the standard, a patient meets criteria 1 without a blood gas if an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% is documented. Therefore, in most cases, if you have a documented oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% on room air with a physical exam showing signs of respiratory distress, your patient will qualify for the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. This negates the need to always have an ABG.

It is important to document the symptoms and physical exam findings that go along with the diagnosis. Patients should have tachypnea with a respiratory rate (RR) greater than 20 or a decreased rate less than 10. They may have wheezing, difficulty moving air, nasal flaring, and accessory muscle use. All of these findings are extremely helpful to validate the diagnosis and would make it extremely difficult for it to be rejected by a biller or insurance company.

These patients are often given supplemental oxygen (nasal cannula, Venturi mask, non-rebreather) and other treatments including steroids, inhaled bronchodilators, mucolytics, and respiratory therapy. Documenting these interventions in your plans can assist reviewers trying to understand your thought process in the treatment of the patient. If your patient has to be initiated on bilevel positive airway pressure (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), this almost always means they have acute respiratory failure.

In the two tables accompanying this article, we see some examples of how documenting acute respiratory failure can improve LOS, ROM, SOI, and reimbursement. The number at the top is based off of a specific DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) that is used by coders.

Let’s say we have a 58-year-old male presenting with chest pain, shortness of breath, and concern for unstable angina. Given his symptoms, he is being taken to the cardiac catheterization lab. If we note only that he was hypoxic and required 3L for an O₂ saturation of 94%, one can see the ROM, SOI, estimated LOS, and reimbursement in the first column. However, if we write that his oxygen saturation on room air is 87%, he is using intercostal muscles to breathe, and he has marked dyspnea with conversation, we can say that he has acute respiratory failure. Making this distinction increases his expected LOS by almost 4 days and nearly doubles reimbursement.



For the second example, we have an 81-year-old female with diabetes type 2, hypertension, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure who presents with an acute systolic CHF exacerbation. The patient is saturating 85% on room air, has tachypnea (RR 34), and was given large doses of intravenous furosemide in the emergency department. She is stabilized with improvement in her respiratory rate and can go to the floor, but by documenting that this was acute respiratory failure, one can again see the significant improvements in the projected LOS, ROM, and reimbursement as opposed to documenting hypoxia. This has huge implications for our hospitals, and we should continue to strive to document this as clearly as possible.

 

Key take-home points for hospitalists

• Document accurately, including any comorbid conditions and major comorbid conditions that are applicable.
• Acute respiratory failure comes from impaired oxygenation, impaired ventilation, or both.
• One needs to document two of the three criteria to formally diagnose acute respiratory failure: pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (or room air oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90%), pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg with pH less than 7.35, and signs/symptoms of respiratory distress.
• Document physical exam findings that correlate with acute respiratory failure (RR greater than 20 or less than 10, wheezing, nasal flaring, accessory muscle use, etc).
• If your patient has to be initiated on BIPAP (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), they likely have acute respiratory failure.

Dr. DeCaro is a hospitalist and medical director for care coordination at Emory University in Atlanta.

It’s always important for everyone to remember why we document things in the chart so that we are on the same page and ultimately do what is best for the patient. We document for insurance companies to prove the need for hospitalization, for legal purposes, and for other clinicians – to clearly communicate the acuity of each patient.

One of the diagnoses that we can often forget to use is acute respiratory failure. Documenting acute respiratory failure matters, regardless if it is, or is not, the primary diagnosis; it increases the estimated Length of Stay (LOS), Severity of Illness (SOI), and Risk of Mortality (ROM). This diagnosis adds an additional degree of specificity to patients with pneumonia, pleural effusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, etc. While we may be hesitant to document this (perhaps feeling that this applies only to patients who are intubated in the ICU), the reader will hopefully have more confidence using it after reviewing the diagnostic criteria.

Acute respiratory failure can stem from impaired oxygenation or impaired ventilation. The following are some examples that follow these principles:

• Impaired oxygenation. Can be seen in pneumonia, pulmonary edema, and pulmonary embolism, and can present as a low O₂ saturation or a low pO₂ on an arterial blood gas (ABG) test.
• Impaired ventilation. Can be seen in COPD or asthma where there is increased effort to ventilate the lungs, which can lead to impaired CO₂ exchange and subsequent acidosis.

One needs to have two of the following three criteria to make a formal diagnosis of acute respiratory failure:

• pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (hypoxemia).
• pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg (hypercapnia) with pH less than 7.35.
• Signs and symptoms of acute respiratory distress.

One may think that it would be difficult to meet criteria without an ABG. Although an ABG is the standard, a patient meets criteria 1 without a blood gas if an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% is documented. Therefore, in most cases, if you have a documented oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% on room air with a physical exam showing signs of respiratory distress, your patient will qualify for the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. This negates the need to always have an ABG.

It is important to document the symptoms and physical exam findings that go along with the diagnosis. Patients should have tachypnea with a respiratory rate (RR) greater than 20 or a decreased rate less than 10. They may have wheezing, difficulty moving air, nasal flaring, and accessory muscle use. All of these findings are extremely helpful to validate the diagnosis and would make it extremely difficult for it to be rejected by a biller or insurance company.

These patients are often given supplemental oxygen (nasal cannula, Venturi mask, non-rebreather) and other treatments including steroids, inhaled bronchodilators, mucolytics, and respiratory therapy. Documenting these interventions in your plans can assist reviewers trying to understand your thought process in the treatment of the patient. If your patient has to be initiated on bilevel positive airway pressure (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), this almost always means they have acute respiratory failure.

In the two tables accompanying this article, we see some examples of how documenting acute respiratory failure can improve LOS, ROM, SOI, and reimbursement. The number at the top is based off of a specific DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) that is used by coders.

Let’s say we have a 58-year-old male presenting with chest pain, shortness of breath, and concern for unstable angina. Given his symptoms, he is being taken to the cardiac catheterization lab. If we note only that he was hypoxic and required 3L for an O₂ saturation of 94%, one can see the ROM, SOI, estimated LOS, and reimbursement in the first column. However, if we write that his oxygen saturation on room air is 87%, he is using intercostal muscles to breathe, and he has marked dyspnea with conversation, we can say that he has acute respiratory failure. Making this distinction increases his expected LOS by almost 4 days and nearly doubles reimbursement.



For the second example, we have an 81-year-old female with diabetes type 2, hypertension, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure who presents with an acute systolic CHF exacerbation. The patient is saturating 85% on room air, has tachypnea (RR 34), and was given large doses of intravenous furosemide in the emergency department. She is stabilized with improvement in her respiratory rate and can go to the floor, but by documenting that this was acute respiratory failure, one can again see the significant improvements in the projected LOS, ROM, and reimbursement as opposed to documenting hypoxia. This has huge implications for our hospitals, and we should continue to strive to document this as clearly as possible.

 

Key take-home points for hospitalists

• Document accurately, including any comorbid conditions and major comorbid conditions that are applicable.
• Acute respiratory failure comes from impaired oxygenation, impaired ventilation, or both.
• One needs to document two of the three criteria to formally diagnose acute respiratory failure: pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (or room air oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90%), pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg with pH less than 7.35, and signs/symptoms of respiratory distress.
• Document physical exam findings that correlate with acute respiratory failure (RR greater than 20 or less than 10, wheezing, nasal flaring, accessory muscle use, etc).
• If your patient has to be initiated on BIPAP (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), they likely have acute respiratory failure.

Dr. DeCaro is a hospitalist and medical director for care coordination at Emory University in Atlanta.

NEW YORK – Seven years after the formation of the first pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), more than 100 institutions have joined the PERT Consortium, which was created to guide care and research for this thrombotic complication, according to a status report at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Why are PERTs needed? Pulmonary embolism patients are like snowflakes. No two are the same,” explained Richard Channick, MD, director of the pulmonary vascular disease program, University of California, Los Angeles.

Patient variability is an issue because algorithms for pulmonary embolism (PE) often differ at the point of diagnosis, such as the emergency department or intensive are unit, according to Dr. Channick, who was present when the first PERT was created in 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston. In addition, treatment algorithms can seem complex at a time when patients are deteriorating quickly.

“The treatment algorithms always say consider this or consider that, and then you get a recommendation with a 2B grade of evidence. So what do you do?” Dr. Channick asked, “This has really been crying for an organized approach.”

PERTs were created to fill this need. In most centers, PERTs are organized to respond to a diagnosis of PE wherever it occurs in the hospital. The goal is rapid activation of a team of experts who can reach a single consensus recommendation.

At MGH and UCLA, a similar relatively simple scheme has been created to guide physicians on how to activate the PERT and which situations make this appropriate.

“A big part of the PERT value has been our ability to conduct a real-time virtual consultation where we leverage online technology to look at images together in order to agree on a strategy,” Dr. Channick explained.

Although frequently asked what specialists are needed for an effective PERT, Dr. Channick said it depends on institutional structures, the types of specialists available, and, in some cases, the specific characteristics of the patient. In many situations, a pulmonary vascular specialist and an interventional radiologist might be sufficient. In others, team members might include some combination of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a hematologist.

It is also appropriate to include clinicians likely to participate in care following acute treatment of the PE. “One of the most critical values to PERT is the ability to systematically follow patients” after the PE is treated, Dr. Channick said.

So far, there are no data to confirm patients managed with PERT achieve better outcomes than those who are not. Reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs are reasonably anticipated and might eventually be demonstrated, but Dr. Channick said that PERTs already have value.

“I think the efficiency of care is important,”he said. He called PERT a “one-stop shopping” approach to ensuring that multiple strategies are considered systematically.

There are many anecdotal examples of the benefits of shared decision-making for PE treatment. In one, a pulmonary specialist in a PERT team narrowly averted a planned thrombolysis in a patient diagnosed with PE who was actually found to have severe pulmonary fibrosis, according to Dr. Channick.

Not least important, the shared decision-making of a PERT could relieve the burden of difficult choices in complex situations. Bad outcomes in PE can be unavoidable even with optimal therapy.

“To me personally, a very important benefit of being part of a PERT is the feeling that we are all in it together,” Dr. Channick said. “Patients can go from being pretty stable to being dead very quickly.”

The PERT Consortium has sponsored an annual meeting on PE since 2015. It also maintains an ongoing registry for PE data from member institutions. These data are expected to have increasing value for comparing the impact of patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and other variables on outcomes.

For clinicians who are uncertain whether the PE incidence at their institution justifies a PERT, Dr. Channick had some advice. “If you build it, they will clot,” he said, meaning that due to the frequency of PE, a PERT will generally have plenty of work once created.

SOURCE: VEITHSYMPOSIUM

NEW YORK – Seven years after the formation of the first pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), more than 100 institutions have joined the PERT Consortium, which was created to guide care and research for this thrombotic complication, according to a status report at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Why are PERTs needed? Pulmonary embolism patients are like snowflakes. No two are the same,” explained Richard Channick, MD, director of the pulmonary vascular disease program, University of California, Los Angeles.

Patient variability is an issue because algorithms for pulmonary embolism (PE) often differ at the point of diagnosis, such as the emergency department or intensive are unit, according to Dr. Channick, who was present when the first PERT was created in 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston. In addition, treatment algorithms can seem complex at a time when patients are deteriorating quickly.

“The treatment algorithms always say consider this or consider that, and then you get a recommendation with a 2B grade of evidence. So what do you do?” Dr. Channick asked, “This has really been crying for an organized approach.”

PERTs were created to fill this need. In most centers, PERTs are organized to respond to a diagnosis of PE wherever it occurs in the hospital. The goal is rapid activation of a team of experts who can reach a single consensus recommendation.

At MGH and UCLA, a similar relatively simple scheme has been created to guide physicians on how to activate the PERT and which situations make this appropriate.

“A big part of the PERT value has been our ability to conduct a real-time virtual consultation where we leverage online technology to look at images together in order to agree on a strategy,” Dr. Channick explained.

Although frequently asked what specialists are needed for an effective PERT, Dr. Channick said it depends on institutional structures, the types of specialists available, and, in some cases, the specific characteristics of the patient. In many situations, a pulmonary vascular specialist and an interventional radiologist might be sufficient. In others, team members might include some combination of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a hematologist.

It is also appropriate to include clinicians likely to participate in care following acute treatment of the PE. “One of the most critical values to PERT is the ability to systematically follow patients” after the PE is treated, Dr. Channick said.

So far, there are no data to confirm patients managed with PERT achieve better outcomes than those who are not. Reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs are reasonably anticipated and might eventually be demonstrated, but Dr. Channick said that PERTs already have value.

“I think the efficiency of care is important,”he said. He called PERT a “one-stop shopping” approach to ensuring that multiple strategies are considered systematically.

There are many anecdotal examples of the benefits of shared decision-making for PE treatment. In one, a pulmonary specialist in a PERT team narrowly averted a planned thrombolysis in a patient diagnosed with PE who was actually found to have severe pulmonary fibrosis, according to Dr. Channick.

Not least important, the shared decision-making of a PERT could relieve the burden of difficult choices in complex situations. Bad outcomes in PE can be unavoidable even with optimal therapy.

“To me personally, a very important benefit of being part of a PERT is the feeling that we are all in it together,” Dr. Channick said. “Patients can go from being pretty stable to being dead very quickly.”

The PERT Consortium has sponsored an annual meeting on PE since 2015. It also maintains an ongoing registry for PE data from member institutions. These data are expected to have increasing value for comparing the impact of patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and other variables on outcomes.

For clinicians who are uncertain whether the PE incidence at their institution justifies a PERT, Dr. Channick had some advice. “If you build it, they will clot,” he said, meaning that due to the frequency of PE, a PERT will generally have plenty of work once created.

SOURCE: VEITHSYMPOSIUM

NEW YORK – Seven years after the formation of the first pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), more than 100 institutions have joined the PERT Consortium, which was created to guide care and research for this thrombotic complication, according to a status report at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Why are PERTs needed? Pulmonary embolism patients are like snowflakes. No two are the same,” explained Richard Channick, MD, director of the pulmonary vascular disease program, University of California, Los Angeles.

Patient variability is an issue because algorithms for pulmonary embolism (PE) often differ at the point of diagnosis, such as the emergency department or intensive are unit, according to Dr. Channick, who was present when the first PERT was created in 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston. In addition, treatment algorithms can seem complex at a time when patients are deteriorating quickly.

“The treatment algorithms always say consider this or consider that, and then you get a recommendation with a 2B grade of evidence. So what do you do?” Dr. Channick asked, “This has really been crying for an organized approach.”

PERTs were created to fill this need. In most centers, PERTs are organized to respond to a diagnosis of PE wherever it occurs in the hospital. The goal is rapid activation of a team of experts who can reach a single consensus recommendation.

At MGH and UCLA, a similar relatively simple scheme has been created to guide physicians on how to activate the PERT and which situations make this appropriate.

“A big part of the PERT value has been our ability to conduct a real-time virtual consultation where we leverage online technology to look at images together in order to agree on a strategy,” Dr. Channick explained.

Although frequently asked what specialists are needed for an effective PERT, Dr. Channick said it depends on institutional structures, the types of specialists available, and, in some cases, the specific characteristics of the patient. In many situations, a pulmonary vascular specialist and an interventional radiologist might be sufficient. In others, team members might include some combination of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a hematologist.

It is also appropriate to include clinicians likely to participate in care following acute treatment of the PE. “One of the most critical values to PERT is the ability to systematically follow patients” after the PE is treated, Dr. Channick said.

So far, there are no data to confirm patients managed with PERT achieve better outcomes than those who are not. Reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs are reasonably anticipated and might eventually be demonstrated, but Dr. Channick said that PERTs already have value.

“I think the efficiency of care is important,”he said. He called PERT a “one-stop shopping” approach to ensuring that multiple strategies are considered systematically.

There are many anecdotal examples of the benefits of shared decision-making for PE treatment. In one, a pulmonary specialist in a PERT team narrowly averted a planned thrombolysis in a patient diagnosed with PE who was actually found to have severe pulmonary fibrosis, according to Dr. Channick.

Not least important, the shared decision-making of a PERT could relieve the burden of difficult choices in complex situations. Bad outcomes in PE can be unavoidable even with optimal therapy.

“To me personally, a very important benefit of being part of a PERT is the feeling that we are all in it together,” Dr. Channick said. “Patients can go from being pretty stable to being dead very quickly.”

The PERT Consortium has sponsored an annual meeting on PE since 2015. It also maintains an ongoing registry for PE data from member institutions. These data are expected to have increasing value for comparing the impact of patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and other variables on outcomes.

For clinicians who are uncertain whether the PE incidence at their institution justifies a PERT, Dr. Channick had some advice. “If you build it, they will clot,” he said, meaning that due to the frequency of PE, a PERT will generally have plenty of work once created.

SOURCE: VEITHSYMPOSIUM

The case

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

A 67-year-old woman with a past medical history significant for diabetes mellitus type 2 and chronic kidney disease stage 3 was recently hospitalized for a community acquired pneumonia and treated for 5 days with moxifloxacin. In the week following this hospitalization, she began to have watery diarrhea and was found to have Clostridioides difficile diarrhea. She was treated with 10 days of oral vancomycin for her C. difficile infection (CDI). Approximately 3 weeks later, she again developed watery diarrhea with some abdominal cramping and has a leukocyte count of 22.4.

Key clinical questions

When is C. difficile considered recurrent?

C. difficile is considered recurrent when a patient experiences symptom onset and has a positive test in the 2-8 week period following the resolution of symptoms from the previous episode that had been confirmed with a positive test.¹

What is the recurrence rate for C. difficile?

Of patients who are initially diagnosed with C. difficile, about 20%-35% develop recurrence of their infection, and of those who experience recurrence, roughly 40%-60% will experience a second recurrence.²

What are the risk factors for recurrent C. difficile?

Risk factors for recurrence of C. difficile include older age (older than 65 years), female sex, Caucasian ethnicity, ongoing antibiotic use, concurrent proton pump inhibitor use, and more severe initial disease.

Also, receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, being an organ transplant recipient, chronic kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, hypogammaglobulinemia, or other immunodeficiency, as well as having exposure to infected adult or infant carrier of C. difficile have all been risk factors for recurrent disease. There is still some degree of ongoing controversy over the role of proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor.²

What are the treatment options for initial C. difficile infection?

The recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend treating for an initial CDI with a 10-day course of oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin instead of metronidazole. This change is based on a combined analysis of two large randomized controlled trials that demonstrated better clinical response rates with vancomycin, compared with metronidazole (81.1% vs. 72.7%; P = .002).^1,3

What are the treatment options for first recurrence?

The data is overall limited in treatment of first recurrence of CDI. The IDSA guidelines recommend that a first recurrence of CDI may be treated with oral vancomycin followed by a tapered and pulsed regimen or with a 10-day course of fidaxomicin. If metronidazole was used for the first episode, a 10-day course of vancomycin can be used.¹

What are the treatment options for second and subsequent recurrences?

Second or subsequent CDI recurrences may be treated with oral vancomycin as a tapered and pulsed-dose regimen or with fidaxomicin as described above, but this is based on low quality of evidence.

The IDSA guidelines strongly recommend fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients who have two or more C. difficile recurrences and in whom standard antibiotic treatment has not been successful. FMT has demonstrated high efficacy rates of 80%-90% for clinical remission of recurrent CDI.

FMT can be administered through various routes. The choice of delivery depends in part on local expertise, patient preference, cost, and risk of the procedure.^1,4,5,6

What new therapies exist for reducing recurrence?

Bezlotoxumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against C. difficile toxin B that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 for prevention of recurrent CDI. Randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that a single infusion of bezlotoxumab, given in combination with usual antibiotics for CDI in adults, was effective in reducing CDI recurrence within 12 weeks (rate of recurrent infection in both trials was 16.5% in the bezlotoxumab groups and 26.6% in the placebo groups).

In a post hoc analysis, the highest benefit was in patients with three or more risk factors: older than 65 years, history of CDI, immunocompromised status, or severe CDI. Although the best strategy for prevention of CDI recurrence remains to be determined, bezlotoxumab remains an option.^7,8

Back to the case

The patient had a C. difficile polymerase chain reaction test sent that came back positive for C. difficile. Because she had previously been treated with a 10-day course of oral vancomycin, she was started on a tapered and pulsed-dose regimen of oral vancomycin. Five days later her diarrhea resolved, and her leukocyte count returned to normal.

Dr. Bell is associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego, Medical Center. Dr. Farkhondehpour is a hospitalist and assistant clinical professor at UC San Diego Health.

References

1. McDonald L et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 19;66(7):987-994.

2. Hopkins R and Wilson R. Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile colitis: A narrative review. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2018 Feb;6(1):21-8.

3. Johnson S et al. (2014). Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: Results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Aug 1;59(3):345-54.

4. van Nood E et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 31;368(5):407-15.

5. Cammarota G et al. Randomised clinical trial: Faecal microbiota transplantation by colonoscopy vs. vancomycin for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 May;41(9):835-43.

6. Kelly C et al. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrence in multiple recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;165(9):609-16.

7. Gerding DN et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients at increased risk for recurrence. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Aug 16;67(5):649-56.

8. Wilcox M et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 26;376(4):305-17.

The case

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

A 67-year-old woman with a past medical history significant for diabetes mellitus type 2 and chronic kidney disease stage 3 was recently hospitalized for a community acquired pneumonia and treated for 5 days with moxifloxacin. In the week following this hospitalization, she began to have watery diarrhea and was found to have Clostridioides difficile diarrhea. She was treated with 10 days of oral vancomycin for her C. difficile infection (CDI). Approximately 3 weeks later, she again developed watery diarrhea with some abdominal cramping and has a leukocyte count of 22.4.

Key clinical questions

When is C. difficile considered recurrent?

C. difficile is considered recurrent when a patient experiences symptom onset and has a positive test in the 2-8 week period following the resolution of symptoms from the previous episode that had been confirmed with a positive test.¹

What is the recurrence rate for C. difficile?

Of patients who are initially diagnosed with C. difficile, about 20%-35% develop recurrence of their infection, and of those who experience recurrence, roughly 40%-60% will experience a second recurrence.²

What are the risk factors for recurrent C. difficile?

Risk factors for recurrence of C. difficile include older age (older than 65 years), female sex, Caucasian ethnicity, ongoing antibiotic use, concurrent proton pump inhibitor use, and more severe initial disease.

Also, receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, being an organ transplant recipient, chronic kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, hypogammaglobulinemia, or other immunodeficiency, as well as having exposure to infected adult or infant carrier of C. difficile have all been risk factors for recurrent disease. There is still some degree of ongoing controversy over the role of proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor.²

What are the treatment options for initial C. difficile infection?

The recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend treating for an initial CDI with a 10-day course of oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin instead of metronidazole. This change is based on a combined analysis of two large randomized controlled trials that demonstrated better clinical response rates with vancomycin, compared with metronidazole (81.1% vs. 72.7%; P = .002).^1,3

What are the treatment options for first recurrence?

The data is overall limited in treatment of first recurrence of CDI. The IDSA guidelines recommend that a first recurrence of CDI may be treated with oral vancomycin followed by a tapered and pulsed regimen or with a 10-day course of fidaxomicin. If metronidazole was used for the first episode, a 10-day course of vancomycin can be used.¹

What are the treatment options for second and subsequent recurrences?

Second or subsequent CDI recurrences may be treated with oral vancomycin as a tapered and pulsed-dose regimen or with fidaxomicin as described above, but this is based on low quality of evidence.

The IDSA guidelines strongly recommend fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients who have two or more C. difficile recurrences and in whom standard antibiotic treatment has not been successful. FMT has demonstrated high efficacy rates of 80%-90% for clinical remission of recurrent CDI.

FMT can be administered through various routes. The choice of delivery depends in part on local expertise, patient preference, cost, and risk of the procedure.^1,4,5,6

What new therapies exist for reducing recurrence?

Bezlotoxumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against C. difficile toxin B that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 for prevention of recurrent CDI. Randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that a single infusion of bezlotoxumab, given in combination with usual antibiotics for CDI in adults, was effective in reducing CDI recurrence within 12 weeks (rate of recurrent infection in both trials was 16.5% in the bezlotoxumab groups and 26.6% in the placebo groups).

In a post hoc analysis, the highest benefit was in patients with three or more risk factors: older than 65 years, history of CDI, immunocompromised status, or severe CDI. Although the best strategy for prevention of CDI recurrence remains to be determined, bezlotoxumab remains an option.^7,8

Back to the case

The patient had a C. difficile polymerase chain reaction test sent that came back positive for C. difficile. Because she had previously been treated with a 10-day course of oral vancomycin, she was started on a tapered and pulsed-dose regimen of oral vancomycin. Five days later her diarrhea resolved, and her leukocyte count returned to normal.

Dr. Bell is associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego, Medical Center. Dr. Farkhondehpour is a hospitalist and assistant clinical professor at UC San Diego Health.

References

1. McDonald L et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 19;66(7):987-994.

2. Hopkins R and Wilson R. Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile colitis: A narrative review. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2018 Feb;6(1):21-8.

3. Johnson S et al. (2014). Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: Results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Aug 1;59(3):345-54.

4. van Nood E et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 31;368(5):407-15.

5. Cammarota G et al. Randomised clinical trial: Faecal microbiota transplantation by colonoscopy vs. vancomycin for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 May;41(9):835-43.

6. Kelly C et al. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrence in multiple recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;165(9):609-16.

7. Gerding DN et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients at increased risk for recurrence. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Aug 16;67(5):649-56.

8. Wilcox M et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 26;376(4):305-17.

The case

CDC/Jennifer Hulsey

A 67-year-old woman with a past medical history significant for diabetes mellitus type 2 and chronic kidney disease stage 3 was recently hospitalized for a community acquired pneumonia and treated for 5 days with moxifloxacin. In the week following this hospitalization, she began to have watery diarrhea and was found to have Clostridioides difficile diarrhea. She was treated with 10 days of oral vancomycin for her C. difficile infection (CDI). Approximately 3 weeks later, she again developed watery diarrhea with some abdominal cramping and has a leukocyte count of 22.4.

Key clinical questions

When is C. difficile considered recurrent?

C. difficile is considered recurrent when a patient experiences symptom onset and has a positive test in the 2-8 week period following the resolution of symptoms from the previous episode that had been confirmed with a positive test.¹

What is the recurrence rate for C. difficile?

Of patients who are initially diagnosed with C. difficile, about 20%-35% develop recurrence of their infection, and of those who experience recurrence, roughly 40%-60% will experience a second recurrence.²

What are the risk factors for recurrent C. difficile?

Risk factors for recurrence of C. difficile include older age (older than 65 years), female sex, Caucasian ethnicity, ongoing antibiotic use, concurrent proton pump inhibitor use, and more severe initial disease.

Also, receiving antineoplastic chemotherapy, being an organ transplant recipient, chronic kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, hypogammaglobulinemia, or other immunodeficiency, as well as having exposure to infected adult or infant carrier of C. difficile have all been risk factors for recurrent disease. There is still some degree of ongoing controversy over the role of proton pump inhibitors as a risk factor.²

What are the treatment options for initial C. difficile infection?

The recent Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend treating for an initial CDI with a 10-day course of oral vancomycin or fidaxomicin instead of metronidazole. This change is based on a combined analysis of two large randomized controlled trials that demonstrated better clinical response rates with vancomycin, compared with metronidazole (81.1% vs. 72.7%; P = .002).^1,3

What are the treatment options for first recurrence?

The data is overall limited in treatment of first recurrence of CDI. The IDSA guidelines recommend that a first recurrence of CDI may be treated with oral vancomycin followed by a tapered and pulsed regimen or with a 10-day course of fidaxomicin. If metronidazole was used for the first episode, a 10-day course of vancomycin can be used.¹

What are the treatment options for second and subsequent recurrences?

Second or subsequent CDI recurrences may be treated with oral vancomycin as a tapered and pulsed-dose regimen or with fidaxomicin as described above, but this is based on low quality of evidence.

The IDSA guidelines strongly recommend fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients who have two or more C. difficile recurrences and in whom standard antibiotic treatment has not been successful. FMT has demonstrated high efficacy rates of 80%-90% for clinical remission of recurrent CDI.

FMT can be administered through various routes. The choice of delivery depends in part on local expertise, patient preference, cost, and risk of the procedure.^1,4,5,6

What new therapies exist for reducing recurrence?

Bezlotoxumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against C. difficile toxin B that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 for prevention of recurrent CDI. Randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrated that a single infusion of bezlotoxumab, given in combination with usual antibiotics for CDI in adults, was effective in reducing CDI recurrence within 12 weeks (rate of recurrent infection in both trials was 16.5% in the bezlotoxumab groups and 26.6% in the placebo groups).

In a post hoc analysis, the highest benefit was in patients with three or more risk factors: older than 65 years, history of CDI, immunocompromised status, or severe CDI. Although the best strategy for prevention of CDI recurrence remains to be determined, bezlotoxumab remains an option.^7,8

Back to the case

The patient had a C. difficile polymerase chain reaction test sent that came back positive for C. difficile. Because she had previously been treated with a 10-day course of oral vancomycin, she was started on a tapered and pulsed-dose regimen of oral vancomycin. Five days later her diarrhea resolved, and her leukocyte count returned to normal.

Dr. Bell is associate clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego, Medical Center. Dr. Farkhondehpour is a hospitalist and assistant clinical professor at UC San Diego Health.

References

1. McDonald L et al. Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults and children: 2017 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Mar 19;66(7):987-994.

2. Hopkins R and Wilson R. Treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile colitis: A narrative review. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2018 Feb;6(1):21-8.

3. Johnson S et al. (2014). Vancomycin, metronidazole, or tolevamer for Clostridium difficile infection: Results from two multinational, randomized, controlled trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Aug 1;59(3):345-54.

4. van Nood E et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 31;368(5):407-15.

5. Cammarota G et al. Randomised clinical trial: Faecal microbiota transplantation by colonoscopy vs. vancomycin for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015 May;41(9):835-43.

6. Kelly C et al. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on recurrence in multiple recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;165(9):609-16.

7. Gerding DN et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection in patients at increased risk for recurrence. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Aug 16;67(5):649-56.

8. Wilcox M et al. Bezlotoxumab for prevention of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 26;376(4):305-17.