All Content

SAN ANTONIO – Prescription opioid abuse has continued declining since 2011, but opioids remain far more commonly abused than other prescription drugs, including gabapentin and pregabalin, new research shows.

“Both gabapentin and pregabalin are abused but at rates that are 6-56 times less frequent than for opioid analgesics,” wrote Kofi Asomaning, DSci, of Pfizer, and associates at Pfizer and Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

“Gabapentin is generally more frequently abused than pregabalin,” they reported in a research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers analyzed data from the RADARS System Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program (NMURx), the RADARS System Treatment Center Programs Combined, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS).

All those use self-reported data. The first is a confidential, anonymous web-based survey used to estimate population-level prevalence, and the second surveys patients with opioid use disorder entering treatment. The NPDS tracks all cases reported to poison control centers nationally.


Analysis of the NMURx data revealed similar lifetime abuse prevalence rates for gabapentin and pregabalin at 0.4%, several magnitudes lower than the 5.3% rate identified with opioids.

Gabapentin, however, had higher rates of abuse in the past month in the Treatment Center Programs Combined. For the third to fourth quarter of 2017, 0.12 per 100,000 population reportedly abused gabapentin, compared with 0.01 per 100,000 for pregabalin. The rate for past-month abuse of opioids was 0.79 per 100,000.

A similar pattern for the same quarter emerged from the NPDS data: Rate of gabapentin abuse was 0.06 per 100,000, rate for pregabalin was 0.01 per 100,000, and rate for opioids was 0.40 per 100,000.

Both pregabalin and opioids were predominantly ingested, though a very small amount of each was inhaled and a similarly small amount of opioids was injected. Data on exposure route for gabapentin were not provided, though it was used more frequently than pregabalin.

The research was funded by Pfizer. The RADARS system is owned by Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado state government. RADARS receives some funding from pharmaceutical industry subscriptions. Dr. Asomaning and Diane L. Martire, MD, MPH, are Pfizer employees who have financial interests with Pfizer.

SAN ANTONIO – Prescription opioid abuse has continued declining since 2011, but opioids remain far more commonly abused than other prescription drugs, including gabapentin and pregabalin, new research shows.

“Both gabapentin and pregabalin are abused but at rates that are 6-56 times less frequent than for opioid analgesics,” wrote Kofi Asomaning, DSci, of Pfizer, and associates at Pfizer and Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

“Gabapentin is generally more frequently abused than pregabalin,” they reported in a research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers analyzed data from the RADARS System Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program (NMURx), the RADARS System Treatment Center Programs Combined, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS).

All those use self-reported data. The first is a confidential, anonymous web-based survey used to estimate population-level prevalence, and the second surveys patients with opioid use disorder entering treatment. The NPDS tracks all cases reported to poison control centers nationally.


Analysis of the NMURx data revealed similar lifetime abuse prevalence rates for gabapentin and pregabalin at 0.4%, several magnitudes lower than the 5.3% rate identified with opioids.

Gabapentin, however, had higher rates of abuse in the past month in the Treatment Center Programs Combined. For the third to fourth quarter of 2017, 0.12 per 100,000 population reportedly abused gabapentin, compared with 0.01 per 100,000 for pregabalin. The rate for past-month abuse of opioids was 0.79 per 100,000.

A similar pattern for the same quarter emerged from the NPDS data: Rate of gabapentin abuse was 0.06 per 100,000, rate for pregabalin was 0.01 per 100,000, and rate for opioids was 0.40 per 100,000.

Both pregabalin and opioids were predominantly ingested, though a very small amount of each was inhaled and a similarly small amount of opioids was injected. Data on exposure route for gabapentin were not provided, though it was used more frequently than pregabalin.

The research was funded by Pfizer. The RADARS system is owned by Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado state government. RADARS receives some funding from pharmaceutical industry subscriptions. Dr. Asomaning and Diane L. Martire, MD, MPH, are Pfizer employees who have financial interests with Pfizer.

SAN ANTONIO – Prescription opioid abuse has continued declining since 2011, but opioids remain far more commonly abused than other prescription drugs, including gabapentin and pregabalin, new research shows.

“Both gabapentin and pregabalin are abused but at rates that are 6-56 times less frequent than for opioid analgesics,” wrote Kofi Asomaning, DSci, of Pfizer, and associates at Pfizer and Denver Health’s Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center.

“Gabapentin is generally more frequently abused than pregabalin,” they reported in a research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

The researchers analyzed data from the RADARS System Survey of Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs Program (NMURx), the RADARS System Treatment Center Programs Combined, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System (NPDS).

All those use self-reported data. The first is a confidential, anonymous web-based survey used to estimate population-level prevalence, and the second surveys patients with opioid use disorder entering treatment. The NPDS tracks all cases reported to poison control centers nationally.


Analysis of the NMURx data revealed similar lifetime abuse prevalence rates for gabapentin and pregabalin at 0.4%, several magnitudes lower than the 5.3% rate identified with opioids.

Gabapentin, however, had higher rates of abuse in the past month in the Treatment Center Programs Combined. For the third to fourth quarter of 2017, 0.12 per 100,000 population reportedly abused gabapentin, compared with 0.01 per 100,000 for pregabalin. The rate for past-month abuse of opioids was 0.79 per 100,000.

A similar pattern for the same quarter emerged from the NPDS data: Rate of gabapentin abuse was 0.06 per 100,000, rate for pregabalin was 0.01 per 100,000, and rate for opioids was 0.40 per 100,000.

Both pregabalin and opioids were predominantly ingested, though a very small amount of each was inhaled and a similarly small amount of opioids was injected. Data on exposure route for gabapentin were not provided, though it was used more frequently than pregabalin.

The research was funded by Pfizer. The RADARS system is owned by Denver Health and Hospital Authority under the Colorado state government. RADARS receives some funding from pharmaceutical industry subscriptions. Dr. Asomaning and Diane L. Martire, MD, MPH, are Pfizer employees who have financial interests with Pfizer.

Case

A 55-year-old male with a history of tobacco use disorder presents with 2 days of productive cough, fever, chills, and mild shortness of breath. T 38.4, HR 89, RR 32, BP 100/65, 02 sat 86% on room air. Exam reveals diminished breath sounds and positive egophony over the right lung base. WBC is 16,000 and BUN 22. Chest x-ray reveals right lower lobe consolidation. He is given ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

Brief overview of the issue

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of infectious disease–related death in the United States. Mortality associated with CAP is estimated at 57,000 deaths annually and occurs largely in patients requiring hospitalization.¹ The 30-day mortality rate in patients who are hospitalized for CAP is approximately 10%-12%.² After discharge from the hospital, about 18% of patients are readmitted within 30 days.³ An excessive inflammatory cytokine response may be a major contributor to the high mortality rate in CAP and systemic corticosteroids may reduce the inflammatory response from the infection by down-regulating this proinflammatory cytokine production.

Almost all of the major decisions regarding management of CAP, including diagnostic and treatment issues, revolve around the initial assessment of severity of illness. Between 40% and 60% of patients who present to the emergency department with CAP are admitted⁴ and approximately 10% of hospitalized patients with CAP require ICU admission.⁵ Validated instruments such as CURB-65, the pneumonia severity index (PSI), and guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) may predict severity of illness but should always be supplemented with physician determination of subjective factors when determining treatment.⁵ Although there is no census definition of severe pneumonia, studies generally define the condition in the following order of preference: PSI score of IV or V followed by CURB-65 score of two or greater. If these scoring modalities were not available, the IDSA/ATS criteria was used (1 major or 3 minor). Others define severe CAP as pneumonia requiring supportive therapy within a critical care environment.
 

Overview of the data

The use of corticosteroids in addition to antibiotics in the treatment of CAP was proposed as early as the 1950s and yet only in the last decade has the body of evidence grown significantly.⁵ There is evidence that corticosteroids suppress inflammation without acutely impairing the immune response as evidenced by a rapid and sustained decrease in circulating inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and interleukin 6 and no effect on the anti-inflammatory interleukin 10.⁶ Within the last year, three meta-analyses, one by the Cochrane Library, one by the IDSA, and a third in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, addressed the role of routine low dose (20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent), short-course (3-7 days) systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with CAP of varying severities.

The Cochrane meta-analysis, the largest and most recent dataset, included 13 trials with a combined 1,954 adult patients and found that corticosteroids significantly lowered mortality in hospitalized patients with severe CAP with a number needed to treat of 19.⁷ In this group with severe CAP, mortality was lowered from 13% to 8% and there were significantly fewer episodes of respiratory failure and shock with the addition of corticosteroids. No effect was seen on mortality in patients with less severe CAP. In those patients who received adjuvant corticosteroids, length of hospital stay decreased by 3 days, regardless of CAP severity.⁷

The IDSA meta-analysis was similar and included 1,506 patients from six trials.⁸ In contrast with the Cochrane study, this analysis found corticosteroids did not significantly lower mortality in patients with severe CAP but did reduce time to clinical stability and length of hospital stay by over 1 day. This study also found significantly more CAP-related, 30-day rehospitalizations (5% vs. 3%; defined as recurrent pneumonia, other infection, pleuritic pain, adverse cardiovascular event, or diarrhea) in patient with non-severe CAP treated with corticosteroids.

The study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine involved ten trials involving more than 700 patients admitted with severe CAP and found in-hospital mortality was cut in half (RR 0.49) and length of hospital stay was reduced when patients were treated with corticosteroids in addition to standard antibiotic therapy.⁹

In 2015, two randomized clinical trials, one in the Lancet and the other in JAMA, and a meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine assessed the impact of adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of hospitalized patients with CAP. The Lancet study of 785 patients hospitalized with CAP of any severity found shortened time to clinical stability (3.0 vs. 4.4 days) as defined by stable vital signs, improved oral intake, and normalized mental status for greater than 24 hours when oral prednisone 50 mg for 7 days was added to standard therapy.¹⁰ Patients in the treatment group were also discharged 1 day earlier compared with the placebo control group.

The study in JAMA was small, with only 100 patients at three teaching hospitals in Spain, but found that patients hospitalized with severe CAP and high inflammatory response based on elevated C-reactive protein were less likely to experience a treatment failure, defined as shock, mechanical ventilation, death, or radiographic progression, when intravenous methylprednisolone 0.5 mg/kg was added to standard antibiotic therapy.¹¹

Finally, the meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine assessed 13 randomized controlled placebo trials of 1,974 patients and found that adjuvant corticosteroids in a dose of 20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent total daily dose significantly lowered mortality in patients with severe CAP and incidence of respiratory distress syndrome, and need for mechanical ventilation in all patients hospitalized with CAP.¹²

Importantly, nearly all of the described studies showed a significantly higher incidence of hyperglycemia in patients who received corticosteroids.
 

Application of the data to our patients

The benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids is most clear in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. Recent, strong evidence supports decreased mortality, decreased time to clinical stability, and decreased length of stay in our patient, with severe CAP, if treated with 20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent total daily dose for 3-7 days. For patients with non-severe CAP, we suggest taking a risk-benefit approach based on other comorbidities, as the risk for CAP-related rehospitalizations may be higher.

For patients with underlying lung disease, specifically COPD or reactive airway disease, we suggest a low threshold for adding corticosteroids. This approach is more anecdotal than data driven, though corticosteroids are a mainstay of treatment for COPD exacerbations and a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 hospitalized children with CAP and wheezing revealed decreased length of stay with corticosteroid treatment.¹³ Furthermore, a number of the studies described above included patients with COPD. Our threshold rises significantly in patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus.
 

Bottom line

For patients hospitalized with severe community-acquired pneumonia, recent evidence supports the use of low dose, short-course, systemic corticosteroids in addition to standard therapy.

Dr. Parsons is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a hospitalist at the University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville, Va. Dr. Miller is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a hospitalist at the University of Virginia Medical Center. Dr. Hoke is Associate Director of Hospital Medicine and Faculty Development at the University of Virginia.

References

1. Ramirez J et al. Adults hospitalized with pneumonia in the United States: Incidence, epidemiology, and mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Dec 1:65(11):1806-12.

2. Musher D et al. Community-acquired pneumonia: Review article. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371:1619-28.

3. Wunderink R et al. Community-aquired pneumonia: Clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 6;370:543-51.

4. Mandell L et al. Infectious Diseases Society America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:S27-72.

5. Wagner HN et al. The effect of hydrocortisone upon the course of pneumococcal pneumonia treated with penicillin. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1956;98:197-215.

6. Polverino E et al. Systemic corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia: Reasons for use and lack of benefit on outcome. Respirology. 2013. Feb;18(2):263-71 (https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.12013).

7. Stern A et al. Corticosteroids for pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 13; 12:CD007720 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007720.pub3).

8. Briel M et al. Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66:346 (https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix801).

9. Wu W-F et al. Efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jul 15; [e-pub] (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.050).

10. Blum CA et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015 Jan 18; [e-pub ahead of print] (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736[14]62447-8).

11. Torres A et al. Effect of corticosteroids on treatment failure among hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high inflammatory response: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015 Feb 17; 313:677 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.88).

12. Siemieniuk RAC et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6;163:519 (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715).

13. Simon LH et al. Management of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized children. Current Treat Options Peds (2015) 1:59 (https://doi:.org/10.1007/s40746-014-0011-3).


 

Key points

• For patients hospitalized with severe CAP, recent evidence supports the use of low-dose, short-course, systemic corticosteroids in addition to standard therapy.

• Among hospitalized patients with non-severe CAP, the benefit is not well defined. Studies suggest these patients may benefit from reduced time to clinical stability and reduced length of hospital stay. However, they may be at risk for significantly more CAP-related, 30-day rehospitalizations and hyperglycemia.

• Further prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to further delineate the patient population who will most benefit from adjunctive corticosteroids use, including dose and duration of treatment.
 

QUIZ

Which of the following is FALSE regarding community acquired pneumonia?

A. CAP is the leading cause of infectious disease related death in the United States.

B. An excessive inflammatory cytokine response may contribute to the high mortality rate in CAP.

C. Adjunctive steroid therapy has been shown to decrease mortality in all patients with CAP.

D. Hyperglycemia occurs more frequently in patients receiving steroid therapy.

E. Reasons to avoid adjunctive steroid therapy in CAP include low risk for mortality, poorly controlled diabetes, suspected viral or fungal etiology, and elevated risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.



ANSWER: C. The patient population that may benefit most from the use of adjuvant corticosteroids is poorly defined. However, in patients with severe pneumonia, the use of adjuvant steroids has been shown to decrease mortality, time to clinical stability, and length of stay.
 

Additional reading

Siemieniuk RAC et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6; 163:519. (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715).

Briel M et al. Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized with community-acquired Pneumonia: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1; 66:346 (https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix801).

Blum CA et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Jan 18; [e-pub ahead of print]. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62447-8).

Feldman C et al. Corticosteroids in the adjunctive therapy of community-acquired pneumonia: an appraisal of recent meta-analyses of clinical trials. J Thorac Dis. 2016 Mar; 8(3):E162-E171.

Wan YD et al. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):209-19.
 

Case

A 55-year-old male with a history of tobacco use disorder presents with 2 days of productive cough, fever, chills, and mild shortness of breath. T 38.4, HR 89, RR 32, BP 100/65, 02 sat 86% on room air. Exam reveals diminished breath sounds and positive egophony over the right lung base. WBC is 16,000 and BUN 22. Chest x-ray reveals right lower lobe consolidation. He is given ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

Brief overview of the issue

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of infectious disease–related death in the United States. Mortality associated with CAP is estimated at 57,000 deaths annually and occurs largely in patients requiring hospitalization.¹ The 30-day mortality rate in patients who are hospitalized for CAP is approximately 10%-12%.² After discharge from the hospital, about 18% of patients are readmitted within 30 days.³ An excessive inflammatory cytokine response may be a major contributor to the high mortality rate in CAP and systemic corticosteroids may reduce the inflammatory response from the infection by down-regulating this proinflammatory cytokine production.

Almost all of the major decisions regarding management of CAP, including diagnostic and treatment issues, revolve around the initial assessment of severity of illness. Between 40% and 60% of patients who present to the emergency department with CAP are admitted⁴ and approximately 10% of hospitalized patients with CAP require ICU admission.⁵ Validated instruments such as CURB-65, the pneumonia severity index (PSI), and guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) may predict severity of illness but should always be supplemented with physician determination of subjective factors when determining treatment.⁵ Although there is no census definition of severe pneumonia, studies generally define the condition in the following order of preference: PSI score of IV or V followed by CURB-65 score of two or greater. If these scoring modalities were not available, the IDSA/ATS criteria was used (1 major or 3 minor). Others define severe CAP as pneumonia requiring supportive therapy within a critical care environment.
 

Overview of the data

The use of corticosteroids in addition to antibiotics in the treatment of CAP was proposed as early as the 1950s and yet only in the last decade has the body of evidence grown significantly.⁵ There is evidence that corticosteroids suppress inflammation without acutely impairing the immune response as evidenced by a rapid and sustained decrease in circulating inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and interleukin 6 and no effect on the anti-inflammatory interleukin 10.⁶ Within the last year, three meta-analyses, one by the Cochrane Library, one by the IDSA, and a third in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, addressed the role of routine low dose (20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent), short-course (3-7 days) systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with CAP of varying severities.

The Cochrane meta-analysis, the largest and most recent dataset, included 13 trials with a combined 1,954 adult patients and found that corticosteroids significantly lowered mortality in hospitalized patients with severe CAP with a number needed to treat of 19.⁷ In this group with severe CAP, mortality was lowered from 13% to 8% and there were significantly fewer episodes of respiratory failure and shock with the addition of corticosteroids. No effect was seen on mortality in patients with less severe CAP. In those patients who received adjuvant corticosteroids, length of hospital stay decreased by 3 days, regardless of CAP severity.⁷

The IDSA meta-analysis was similar and included 1,506 patients from six trials.⁸ In contrast with the Cochrane study, this analysis found corticosteroids did not significantly lower mortality in patients with severe CAP but did reduce time to clinical stability and length of hospital stay by over 1 day. This study also found significantly more CAP-related, 30-day rehospitalizations (5% vs. 3%; defined as recurrent pneumonia, other infection, pleuritic pain, adverse cardiovascular event, or diarrhea) in patient with non-severe CAP treated with corticosteroids.

The study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine involved ten trials involving more than 700 patients admitted with severe CAP and found in-hospital mortality was cut in half (RR 0.49) and length of hospital stay was reduced when patients were treated with corticosteroids in addition to standard antibiotic therapy.⁹

In 2015, two randomized clinical trials, one in the Lancet and the other in JAMA, and a meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine assessed the impact of adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of hospitalized patients with CAP. The Lancet study of 785 patients hospitalized with CAP of any severity found shortened time to clinical stability (3.0 vs. 4.4 days) as defined by stable vital signs, improved oral intake, and normalized mental status for greater than 24 hours when oral prednisone 50 mg for 7 days was added to standard therapy.¹⁰ Patients in the treatment group were also discharged 1 day earlier compared with the placebo control group.

The study in JAMA was small, with only 100 patients at three teaching hospitals in Spain, but found that patients hospitalized with severe CAP and high inflammatory response based on elevated C-reactive protein were less likely to experience a treatment failure, defined as shock, mechanical ventilation, death, or radiographic progression, when intravenous methylprednisolone 0.5 mg/kg was added to standard antibiotic therapy.¹¹

Finally, the meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine assessed 13 randomized controlled placebo trials of 1,974 patients and found that adjuvant corticosteroids in a dose of 20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent total daily dose significantly lowered mortality in patients with severe CAP and incidence of respiratory distress syndrome, and need for mechanical ventilation in all patients hospitalized with CAP.¹²

Importantly, nearly all of the described studies showed a significantly higher incidence of hyperglycemia in patients who received corticosteroids.
 

Application of the data to our patients

The benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids is most clear in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. Recent, strong evidence supports decreased mortality, decreased time to clinical stability, and decreased length of stay in our patient, with severe CAP, if treated with 20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent total daily dose for 3-7 days. For patients with non-severe CAP, we suggest taking a risk-benefit approach based on other comorbidities, as the risk for CAP-related rehospitalizations may be higher.

For patients with underlying lung disease, specifically COPD or reactive airway disease, we suggest a low threshold for adding corticosteroids. This approach is more anecdotal than data driven, though corticosteroids are a mainstay of treatment for COPD exacerbations and a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 hospitalized children with CAP and wheezing revealed decreased length of stay with corticosteroid treatment.¹³ Furthermore, a number of the studies described above included patients with COPD. Our threshold rises significantly in patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus.
 

Bottom line

For patients hospitalized with severe community-acquired pneumonia, recent evidence supports the use of low dose, short-course, systemic corticosteroids in addition to standard therapy.

Dr. Parsons is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a hospitalist at the University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville, Va. Dr. Miller is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a hospitalist at the University of Virginia Medical Center. Dr. Hoke is Associate Director of Hospital Medicine and Faculty Development at the University of Virginia.

References

1. Ramirez J et al. Adults hospitalized with pneumonia in the United States: Incidence, epidemiology, and mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Dec 1:65(11):1806-12.

2. Musher D et al. Community-acquired pneumonia: Review article. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371:1619-28.

3. Wunderink R et al. Community-aquired pneumonia: Clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 6;370:543-51.

4. Mandell L et al. Infectious Diseases Society America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:S27-72.

5. Wagner HN et al. The effect of hydrocortisone upon the course of pneumococcal pneumonia treated with penicillin. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1956;98:197-215.

6. Polverino E et al. Systemic corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia: Reasons for use and lack of benefit on outcome. Respirology. 2013. Feb;18(2):263-71 (https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.12013).

7. Stern A et al. Corticosteroids for pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 13; 12:CD007720 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007720.pub3).

8. Briel M et al. Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66:346 (https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix801).

9. Wu W-F et al. Efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jul 15; [e-pub] (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.050).

10. Blum CA et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015 Jan 18; [e-pub ahead of print] (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736[14]62447-8).

11. Torres A et al. Effect of corticosteroids on treatment failure among hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high inflammatory response: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015 Feb 17; 313:677 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.88).

12. Siemieniuk RAC et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6;163:519 (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715).

13. Simon LH et al. Management of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized children. Current Treat Options Peds (2015) 1:59 (https://doi:.org/10.1007/s40746-014-0011-3).


 

Key points

• For patients hospitalized with severe CAP, recent evidence supports the use of low-dose, short-course, systemic corticosteroids in addition to standard therapy.

• Among hospitalized patients with non-severe CAP, the benefit is not well defined. Studies suggest these patients may benefit from reduced time to clinical stability and reduced length of hospital stay. However, they may be at risk for significantly more CAP-related, 30-day rehospitalizations and hyperglycemia.

• Further prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to further delineate the patient population who will most benefit from adjunctive corticosteroids use, including dose and duration of treatment.
 

QUIZ

Which of the following is FALSE regarding community acquired pneumonia?

A. CAP is the leading cause of infectious disease related death in the United States.

B. An excessive inflammatory cytokine response may contribute to the high mortality rate in CAP.

C. Adjunctive steroid therapy has been shown to decrease mortality in all patients with CAP.

D. Hyperglycemia occurs more frequently in patients receiving steroid therapy.

E. Reasons to avoid adjunctive steroid therapy in CAP include low risk for mortality, poorly controlled diabetes, suspected viral or fungal etiology, and elevated risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.



ANSWER: C. The patient population that may benefit most from the use of adjuvant corticosteroids is poorly defined. However, in patients with severe pneumonia, the use of adjuvant steroids has been shown to decrease mortality, time to clinical stability, and length of stay.
 

Additional reading

Siemieniuk RAC et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6; 163:519. (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715).

Briel M et al. Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized with community-acquired Pneumonia: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1; 66:346 (https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix801).

Blum CA et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Jan 18; [e-pub ahead of print]. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62447-8).

Feldman C et al. Corticosteroids in the adjunctive therapy of community-acquired pneumonia: an appraisal of recent meta-analyses of clinical trials. J Thorac Dis. 2016 Mar; 8(3):E162-E171.

Wan YD et al. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):209-19.
 

Case

A 55-year-old male with a history of tobacco use disorder presents with 2 days of productive cough, fever, chills, and mild shortness of breath. T 38.4, HR 89, RR 32, BP 100/65, 02 sat 86% on room air. Exam reveals diminished breath sounds and positive egophony over the right lung base. WBC is 16,000 and BUN 22. Chest x-ray reveals right lower lobe consolidation. He is given ceftriaxone and azithromycin.

Brief overview of the issue

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of infectious disease–related death in the United States. Mortality associated with CAP is estimated at 57,000 deaths annually and occurs largely in patients requiring hospitalization.¹ The 30-day mortality rate in patients who are hospitalized for CAP is approximately 10%-12%.² After discharge from the hospital, about 18% of patients are readmitted within 30 days.³ An excessive inflammatory cytokine response may be a major contributor to the high mortality rate in CAP and systemic corticosteroids may reduce the inflammatory response from the infection by down-regulating this proinflammatory cytokine production.

Almost all of the major decisions regarding management of CAP, including diagnostic and treatment issues, revolve around the initial assessment of severity of illness. Between 40% and 60% of patients who present to the emergency department with CAP are admitted⁴ and approximately 10% of hospitalized patients with CAP require ICU admission.⁵ Validated instruments such as CURB-65, the pneumonia severity index (PSI), and guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) may predict severity of illness but should always be supplemented with physician determination of subjective factors when determining treatment.⁵ Although there is no census definition of severe pneumonia, studies generally define the condition in the following order of preference: PSI score of IV or V followed by CURB-65 score of two or greater. If these scoring modalities were not available, the IDSA/ATS criteria was used (1 major or 3 minor). Others define severe CAP as pneumonia requiring supportive therapy within a critical care environment.
 

Overview of the data

The use of corticosteroids in addition to antibiotics in the treatment of CAP was proposed as early as the 1950s and yet only in the last decade has the body of evidence grown significantly.⁵ There is evidence that corticosteroids suppress inflammation without acutely impairing the immune response as evidenced by a rapid and sustained decrease in circulating inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and interleukin 6 and no effect on the anti-inflammatory interleukin 10.⁶ Within the last year, three meta-analyses, one by the Cochrane Library, one by the IDSA, and a third in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, addressed the role of routine low dose (20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent), short-course (3-7 days) systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with CAP of varying severities.

The Cochrane meta-analysis, the largest and most recent dataset, included 13 trials with a combined 1,954 adult patients and found that corticosteroids significantly lowered mortality in hospitalized patients with severe CAP with a number needed to treat of 19.⁷ In this group with severe CAP, mortality was lowered from 13% to 8% and there were significantly fewer episodes of respiratory failure and shock with the addition of corticosteroids. No effect was seen on mortality in patients with less severe CAP. In those patients who received adjuvant corticosteroids, length of hospital stay decreased by 3 days, regardless of CAP severity.⁷

The IDSA meta-analysis was similar and included 1,506 patients from six trials.⁸ In contrast with the Cochrane study, this analysis found corticosteroids did not significantly lower mortality in patients with severe CAP but did reduce time to clinical stability and length of hospital stay by over 1 day. This study also found significantly more CAP-related, 30-day rehospitalizations (5% vs. 3%; defined as recurrent pneumonia, other infection, pleuritic pain, adverse cardiovascular event, or diarrhea) in patient with non-severe CAP treated with corticosteroids.

The study in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine involved ten trials involving more than 700 patients admitted with severe CAP and found in-hospital mortality was cut in half (RR 0.49) and length of hospital stay was reduced when patients were treated with corticosteroids in addition to standard antibiotic therapy.⁹

In 2015, two randomized clinical trials, one in the Lancet and the other in JAMA, and a meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine assessed the impact of adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of hospitalized patients with CAP. The Lancet study of 785 patients hospitalized with CAP of any severity found shortened time to clinical stability (3.0 vs. 4.4 days) as defined by stable vital signs, improved oral intake, and normalized mental status for greater than 24 hours when oral prednisone 50 mg for 7 days was added to standard therapy.¹⁰ Patients in the treatment group were also discharged 1 day earlier compared with the placebo control group.

The study in JAMA was small, with only 100 patients at three teaching hospitals in Spain, but found that patients hospitalized with severe CAP and high inflammatory response based on elevated C-reactive protein were less likely to experience a treatment failure, defined as shock, mechanical ventilation, death, or radiographic progression, when intravenous methylprednisolone 0.5 mg/kg was added to standard antibiotic therapy.¹¹

Finally, the meta-analysis in Annals of Internal Medicine assessed 13 randomized controlled placebo trials of 1,974 patients and found that adjuvant corticosteroids in a dose of 20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent total daily dose significantly lowered mortality in patients with severe CAP and incidence of respiratory distress syndrome, and need for mechanical ventilation in all patients hospitalized with CAP.¹²

Importantly, nearly all of the described studies showed a significantly higher incidence of hyperglycemia in patients who received corticosteroids.
 

Application of the data to our patients

The benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids is most clear in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. Recent, strong evidence supports decreased mortality, decreased time to clinical stability, and decreased length of stay in our patient, with severe CAP, if treated with 20-60 mg of prednisone or equivalent total daily dose for 3-7 days. For patients with non-severe CAP, we suggest taking a risk-benefit approach based on other comorbidities, as the risk for CAP-related rehospitalizations may be higher.

For patients with underlying lung disease, specifically COPD or reactive airway disease, we suggest a low threshold for adding corticosteroids. This approach is more anecdotal than data driven, though corticosteroids are a mainstay of treatment for COPD exacerbations and a retrospective analysis of more than 20,000 hospitalized children with CAP and wheezing revealed decreased length of stay with corticosteroid treatment.¹³ Furthermore, a number of the studies described above included patients with COPD. Our threshold rises significantly in patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus.
 

Bottom line

For patients hospitalized with severe community-acquired pneumonia, recent evidence supports the use of low dose, short-course, systemic corticosteroids in addition to standard therapy.

Dr. Parsons is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a hospitalist at the University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville, Va. Dr. Miller is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and a hospitalist at the University of Virginia Medical Center. Dr. Hoke is Associate Director of Hospital Medicine and Faculty Development at the University of Virginia.

References

1. Ramirez J et al. Adults hospitalized with pneumonia in the United States: Incidence, epidemiology, and mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Dec 1:65(11):1806-12.

2. Musher D et al. Community-acquired pneumonia: Review article. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371:1619-28.

3. Wunderink R et al. Community-aquired pneumonia: Clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 6;370:543-51.

4. Mandell L et al. Infectious Diseases Society America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:S27-72.

5. Wagner HN et al. The effect of hydrocortisone upon the course of pneumococcal pneumonia treated with penicillin. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1956;98:197-215.

6. Polverino E et al. Systemic corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia: Reasons for use and lack of benefit on outcome. Respirology. 2013. Feb;18(2):263-71 (https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.12013).

7. Stern A et al. Corticosteroids for pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 13; 12:CD007720 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007720.pub3).

8. Briel M et al. Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66:346 (https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix801).

9. Wu W-F et al. Efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2017 Jul 15; [e-pub] (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.050).

10. Blum CA et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015 Jan 18; [e-pub ahead of print] (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736[14]62447-8).

11. Torres A et al. Effect of corticosteroids on treatment failure among hospitalized patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia and high inflammatory response: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015 Feb 17; 313:677 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.88).

12. Siemieniuk RAC et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6;163:519 (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715).

13. Simon LH et al. Management of community-acquired pneumonia in hospitalized children. Current Treat Options Peds (2015) 1:59 (https://doi:.org/10.1007/s40746-014-0011-3).


 

Key points

• For patients hospitalized with severe CAP, recent evidence supports the use of low-dose, short-course, systemic corticosteroids in addition to standard therapy.

• Among hospitalized patients with non-severe CAP, the benefit is not well defined. Studies suggest these patients may benefit from reduced time to clinical stability and reduced length of hospital stay. However, they may be at risk for significantly more CAP-related, 30-day rehospitalizations and hyperglycemia.

• Further prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to further delineate the patient population who will most benefit from adjunctive corticosteroids use, including dose and duration of treatment.
 

QUIZ

Which of the following is FALSE regarding community acquired pneumonia?

A. CAP is the leading cause of infectious disease related death in the United States.

B. An excessive inflammatory cytokine response may contribute to the high mortality rate in CAP.

C. Adjunctive steroid therapy has been shown to decrease mortality in all patients with CAP.

D. Hyperglycemia occurs more frequently in patients receiving steroid therapy.

E. Reasons to avoid adjunctive steroid therapy in CAP include low risk for mortality, poorly controlled diabetes, suspected viral or fungal etiology, and elevated risk for gastrointestinal bleeding.



ANSWER: C. The patient population that may benefit most from the use of adjuvant corticosteroids is poorly defined. However, in patients with severe pneumonia, the use of adjuvant steroids has been shown to decrease mortality, time to clinical stability, and length of stay.
 

Additional reading

Siemieniuk RAC et al. Corticosteroid therapy for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Oct 6; 163:519. (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M15-0715).

Briel M et al. Corticosteroids in patients hospitalized with community-acquired Pneumonia: Systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1; 66:346 (https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix801).

Blum CA et al. Adjunct prednisone therapy for patients with community-acquired pneumonia: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Jan 18; [e-pub ahead of print]. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62447-8).

Feldman C et al. Corticosteroids in the adjunctive therapy of community-acquired pneumonia: an appraisal of recent meta-analyses of clinical trials. J Thorac Dis. 2016 Mar; 8(3):E162-E171.

Wan YD et al. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2016 Jan;149(1):209-19.
 

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Patients on rivaroxaban had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with those taking apixaban or dabigatran, results from a large population-based study showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This may be due to the fact that rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose as opposed to the other two non–vitamin K anticoagulants [NOACs], which are given twice daily,” lead study author Arnar B. Ingason said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. “This may lead to a greater variance in plasma drug concentration, making these patients more susceptible to bleeding.”

Mr. Ingason, a medical student at the University of Iceland, Reykjavik, said that although several studies have compared warfarin with NOACs, it remains unclear which NOAC has the most favorable GI profile. In an effort to improve the research in this area, he and his associates performed a nationwide, population-based study during March 2014–Jan. 2018 to compare the GI bleeding risk of patients receiving rivaroxaban to that of a combined pool of patients receiving either apixaban or dabigatran. They drew from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, which contains all outpatient drug prescriptions in the country. Next, the researchers linked the personal identification numbers of patients to the Landspitali University diagnoses registry, which includes more than 90% of all patients hospitalized for GI bleeding. They used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score for matching and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression to compare rates of GI bleeding. The study outcome of interest was any clinically relevant GI bleeding.

Mr. Ingason reported that the baseline characteristics were similar between the rivaroxaban group and the apixaban/dabigatran group. They matched for several variables, including age, sex, Charlson score, the proportion being anticoagulant naive, moderate to severe renal disease, moderate to severe liver disease, any prior bleeding, and any prior thrombotic events.

During the study period, 3,473 patients received rivaroxaban, 1,901 received apixaban, and 1,086 received dabigatran. After propensity score matching, the researchers compared 2,635 patients who received rivaroxaban with 2,365 patients who received either apixaban or dabigatran. They found that patients in the rivaroxaban group had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with in the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.2 and. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively). This yielded a hazard ratio of 2.02, “which means that patients receiving rivaroxaban are twice as likely to get GI bleeding compared to patients on apixaban or dabigatran,” Mr. Ingason said. When the researchers examined the entire unmatched cohort of patients, the rivaroxaban group also had significantly higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group (1.0 and 0.6 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.75).

Mr. Ingason and his colleagues observed that patients in the rivaroxaban group had higher rates of GI bleeding, compared with the apixaban/dabigatran group, during the entire follow-up period. At the end of year 4, the rivaroxaban group had a 4% cumulative event rate of GI bleeding, compared with 1.8% for the apixaban/dabigatran group, a highly significant difference at P = .0057).

When a meeting attendee asked Mr. Ingason why patients taking apixaban or dabigatran were combined into one group, he said that it was done to increase the power of their study. “Our theory was that rivaroxaban was different because it is administered as a single daily dose, while the others are given twice daily,” he said. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Many performance improvement programs try to create a higher value health system by incentivizing physicians and health systems to behave in particular ways. These have often been pay-for-performance programs that offer bonuses or impose penalties depending on how providers perform on various metrics.

“In theory, this makes sense,” said Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, lead author of a JAMA article about the future of incentives, and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “But in practice, these programs have not been successful in consistently improving quality, and sometimes they have been counterproductive. In our article, we argued that focusing too narrowly on financial rewards is not the right strategy to improve health system performance – and is sometimes at odds with the physician professionalism and what really motivates most clinicians.”

Pay-for-performance programs suffer from several fundamental flaws: they focus too narrowly on financial incentives and use centralized accountability instead of local culture, for example, Dr. Khullar said.

“A better future state would involve capitalizing on physician professionalism through nonfinancial rewards, resources for quality improvement, team-based assessments, and emphasizing continuous learning and organizational culture,” he noted. Performance programs would take a more global view of clinical care by emphasizing culture, teams, trust, and learning. Such a system would allow hospitalists and other physicians to worry less about meeting specific metrics and focus more on providing high-quality care to their patients.

“I would hope physicians, payers, and administrators would reconsider some previously held beliefs about quality improvement, especially the idea that better quality requires giving people bonus payments or imposing financial penalties,” Dr. Khullar said. “We believe the next wave of performance improvement programs should entertain other paths to better quality, which are more in line with human motivation and physician professionalism.”
 

Reference

1. Khullar D, Wolfson D, Casalino LP. Professionalism, Performance, and the Future of Physician Incentives. JAMA. 2018 Nov 26 (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.17719. Accessed Dec. 11, 2018.

Many performance improvement programs try to create a higher value health system by incentivizing physicians and health systems to behave in particular ways. These have often been pay-for-performance programs that offer bonuses or impose penalties depending on how providers perform on various metrics.

“In theory, this makes sense,” said Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, lead author of a JAMA article about the future of incentives, and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “But in practice, these programs have not been successful in consistently improving quality, and sometimes they have been counterproductive. In our article, we argued that focusing too narrowly on financial rewards is not the right strategy to improve health system performance – and is sometimes at odds with the physician professionalism and what really motivates most clinicians.”

Pay-for-performance programs suffer from several fundamental flaws: they focus too narrowly on financial incentives and use centralized accountability instead of local culture, for example, Dr. Khullar said.

“A better future state would involve capitalizing on physician professionalism through nonfinancial rewards, resources for quality improvement, team-based assessments, and emphasizing continuous learning and organizational culture,” he noted. Performance programs would take a more global view of clinical care by emphasizing culture, teams, trust, and learning. Such a system would allow hospitalists and other physicians to worry less about meeting specific metrics and focus more on providing high-quality care to their patients.

“I would hope physicians, payers, and administrators would reconsider some previously held beliefs about quality improvement, especially the idea that better quality requires giving people bonus payments or imposing financial penalties,” Dr. Khullar said. “We believe the next wave of performance improvement programs should entertain other paths to better quality, which are more in line with human motivation and physician professionalism.”
 

Reference

1. Khullar D, Wolfson D, Casalino LP. Professionalism, Performance, and the Future of Physician Incentives. JAMA. 2018 Nov 26 (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.17719. Accessed Dec. 11, 2018.

Many performance improvement programs try to create a higher value health system by incentivizing physicians and health systems to behave in particular ways. These have often been pay-for-performance programs that offer bonuses or impose penalties depending on how providers perform on various metrics.

“In theory, this makes sense,” said Dhruv Khullar, MD, MPP, lead author of a JAMA article about the future of incentives, and assistant professor at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “But in practice, these programs have not been successful in consistently improving quality, and sometimes they have been counterproductive. In our article, we argued that focusing too narrowly on financial rewards is not the right strategy to improve health system performance – and is sometimes at odds with the physician professionalism and what really motivates most clinicians.”

Pay-for-performance programs suffer from several fundamental flaws: they focus too narrowly on financial incentives and use centralized accountability instead of local culture, for example, Dr. Khullar said.

“A better future state would involve capitalizing on physician professionalism through nonfinancial rewards, resources for quality improvement, team-based assessments, and emphasizing continuous learning and organizational culture,” he noted. Performance programs would take a more global view of clinical care by emphasizing culture, teams, trust, and learning. Such a system would allow hospitalists and other physicians to worry less about meeting specific metrics and focus more on providing high-quality care to their patients.

“I would hope physicians, payers, and administrators would reconsider some previously held beliefs about quality improvement, especially the idea that better quality requires giving people bonus payments or imposing financial penalties,” Dr. Khullar said. “We believe the next wave of performance improvement programs should entertain other paths to better quality, which are more in line with human motivation and physician professionalism.”
 

Reference

1. Khullar D, Wolfson D, Casalino LP. Professionalism, Performance, and the Future of Physician Incentives. JAMA. 2018 Nov 26 (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.17719. Accessed Dec. 11, 2018.

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration have issued a safety alert regarding the use of fecal microbiota for transplantation and the risk of serious adverse reactions because of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

According to the alert, which was issued on June 13, 2019, the agency became aware of two immunocompromised adult patients who received investigational fecal microbiota for transplantation (FMT) and developed extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (EBSL)–producing Escherichia coli. One of the patients died.

“This is certainly a theoretical risk that we’ve known about,” Lea Ann Chen, MD, a gastroenterologist at New York University, said in an interview. “This announcement is important, because we probably don’t counsel patients specifically about this risk. We say there is a risk for transmission of infectious agents in general, but I think that probably very few counsel patients about a risk for transmission of MDROs.”

The donor stool and FMT used in the two patients were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms prior to use.

As a result of these serious adverse reactions, the FDA has determined that the following donor screening and stool testing protections are needed for any investigational use of FMT.

• Donor screening with questions that specifically address risk factors for colonization with MDROs, and exclusion of individuals at higher risk of colonization with MDROs.
• MDRO testing of donor stool and exclusion of stool that tests positive for MDRO. FDA scientists have determined the specific MDRO testing and frequency that should be implemented.

On June 14, the American Gastroenterological Association sent a communication about the FDA alert to its members, which stated that the AGA “is committed to advancing applications of the gut microbiome. Our top priority is ensuring patient safety from microbiome-based therapeutics, such as FMT. Through the AGA FMT National Registry, AGA is working with physicians and patients to track FMT usage, patient outcomes and adverse events. Associated with the registry is a biorepository of donor and patient stool samples, which will allow further investigation of unexpected events such as those described in FDA’s safety alert.”

Dr. Chen, who received the AGA Research Foundation’s 2016 Research Scholar Award for her work on the gut microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease, pointed out that FMT has also been studied as a way to prevent colonization and infection with certain drug resistant organisms, such as vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

“Therefore, it’s not that FMT is ‘bad;’ we just have to be more diligent about optimizing the safety of the procedure by screening for of multidrug-resistant organisms,” she said. “We also need to study the use of FMT more, so that we can fully understand the risks associated with the procedure. It’s an important and potentially lifesaving procedure for some, but it’s important that everyone go into the procedure understanding fully what the risks and benefits are.”

Suspected adverse events related to the administration of FMT products can be reported to the FDA at 1-800-332-1088 or via MedWatch.

[email protected]

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration have issued a safety alert regarding the use of fecal microbiota for transplantation and the risk of serious adverse reactions because of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

According to the alert, which was issued on June 13, 2019, the agency became aware of two immunocompromised adult patients who received investigational fecal microbiota for transplantation (FMT) and developed extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (EBSL)–producing Escherichia coli. One of the patients died.

“This is certainly a theoretical risk that we’ve known about,” Lea Ann Chen, MD, a gastroenterologist at New York University, said in an interview. “This announcement is important, because we probably don’t counsel patients specifically about this risk. We say there is a risk for transmission of infectious agents in general, but I think that probably very few counsel patients about a risk for transmission of MDROs.”

The donor stool and FMT used in the two patients were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms prior to use.

As a result of these serious adverse reactions, the FDA has determined that the following donor screening and stool testing protections are needed for any investigational use of FMT.

• Donor screening with questions that specifically address risk factors for colonization with MDROs, and exclusion of individuals at higher risk of colonization with MDROs.
• MDRO testing of donor stool and exclusion of stool that tests positive for MDRO. FDA scientists have determined the specific MDRO testing and frequency that should be implemented.

On June 14, the American Gastroenterological Association sent a communication about the FDA alert to its members, which stated that the AGA “is committed to advancing applications of the gut microbiome. Our top priority is ensuring patient safety from microbiome-based therapeutics, such as FMT. Through the AGA FMT National Registry, AGA is working with physicians and patients to track FMT usage, patient outcomes and adverse events. Associated with the registry is a biorepository of donor and patient stool samples, which will allow further investigation of unexpected events such as those described in FDA’s safety alert.”

Dr. Chen, who received the AGA Research Foundation’s 2016 Research Scholar Award for her work on the gut microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease, pointed out that FMT has also been studied as a way to prevent colonization and infection with certain drug resistant organisms, such as vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

“Therefore, it’s not that FMT is ‘bad;’ we just have to be more diligent about optimizing the safety of the procedure by screening for of multidrug-resistant organisms,” she said. “We also need to study the use of FMT more, so that we can fully understand the risks associated with the procedure. It’s an important and potentially lifesaving procedure for some, but it’s important that everyone go into the procedure understanding fully what the risks and benefits are.”

Suspected adverse events related to the administration of FMT products can be reported to the FDA at 1-800-332-1088 or via MedWatch.

[email protected]

Officials at the Food and Drug Administration have issued a safety alert regarding the use of fecal microbiota for transplantation and the risk of serious adverse reactions because of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs).

According to the alert, which was issued on June 13, 2019, the agency became aware of two immunocompromised adult patients who received investigational fecal microbiota for transplantation (FMT) and developed extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (EBSL)–producing Escherichia coli. One of the patients died.

“This is certainly a theoretical risk that we’ve known about,” Lea Ann Chen, MD, a gastroenterologist at New York University, said in an interview. “This announcement is important, because we probably don’t counsel patients specifically about this risk. We say there is a risk for transmission of infectious agents in general, but I think that probably very few counsel patients about a risk for transmission of MDROs.”

The donor stool and FMT used in the two patients were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms prior to use.

As a result of these serious adverse reactions, the FDA has determined that the following donor screening and stool testing protections are needed for any investigational use of FMT.

• Donor screening with questions that specifically address risk factors for colonization with MDROs, and exclusion of individuals at higher risk of colonization with MDROs.
• MDRO testing of donor stool and exclusion of stool that tests positive for MDRO. FDA scientists have determined the specific MDRO testing and frequency that should be implemented.

On June 14, the American Gastroenterological Association sent a communication about the FDA alert to its members, which stated that the AGA “is committed to advancing applications of the gut microbiome. Our top priority is ensuring patient safety from microbiome-based therapeutics, such as FMT. Through the AGA FMT National Registry, AGA is working with physicians and patients to track FMT usage, patient outcomes and adverse events. Associated with the registry is a biorepository of donor and patient stool samples, which will allow further investigation of unexpected events such as those described in FDA’s safety alert.”

Dr. Chen, who received the AGA Research Foundation’s 2016 Research Scholar Award for her work on the gut microbiome and inflammatory bowel disease, pointed out that FMT has also been studied as a way to prevent colonization and infection with certain drug resistant organisms, such as vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

“Therefore, it’s not that FMT is ‘bad;’ we just have to be more diligent about optimizing the safety of the procedure by screening for of multidrug-resistant organisms,” she said. “We also need to study the use of FMT more, so that we can fully understand the risks associated with the procedure. It’s an important and potentially lifesaving procedure for some, but it’s important that everyone go into the procedure understanding fully what the risks and benefits are.”

Suspected adverse events related to the administration of FMT products can be reported to the FDA at 1-800-332-1088 or via MedWatch.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Bacterial infections quickly can be distinguished from viral infections in febrile children using a novel real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay assessing RNA expression of a single patient gene, according to a proof-of-concept study presented by Ruth Barral-Arca at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The gene of interest – IFI44L – is entwined in a child’s response to infection. It’s upregulated in the presence of viral infection and suppressed in bacterial infection, explained Ms. Barral-Arca, a PhD student at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain).

This investigational real-time PCR assay could provide a major advance over current routine practice, which is to admit a sick febrile child to the hospital, order bacterial cultures, and start parenteral antibiotics presumptively while awaiting the culture results, which usually don’t come back for more than 24 hours. This practice is a step backwards in terms of antibiotic stewardship, because the majority of febrile children have a self-resolving viral infection.

“This is a big problem because a lot of children with viral infections are inappropriately given antibiotics, leading to antimicrobial resistance,” she noted.

Also, misleadingly false-negative bacterial cultures can occur if the causative pathogen wasn’t included in the test, the infection is in a nonaccessible site, or the child has recently been on antibiotics.

All of these shortcomings have led to a new diagnostic strategy based upon measuring the pattern of key host genes upregulated or suppressed during the inflammatory response.

“We’ve seen that, instead of analyzing the bugs, analyzing the host transcriptome response during infection is proving to be a promising tool for disease biomarker identification. And it’s faster. An early differentiation between viral and bacterial patients will help improve triage in emergency departments, decrease the misuse of antibiotics, and guide clinics to a more precise diagnosis. A lot of big hospitals are already doing PCR. They could quickly adopt this kind of analysis,” Ms. Barral-Arca continued.

IPGGutenbergUKLtd/Thinkstock

She presented a pilot study in which the assay was put to the test using multiple blood samples from 14 febrile infants and children up to 6 years of age with microbiologically confirmed bacterial infection, 11 febrile children with confirmed viral infection, and 10 healthy controls.

“I know the numbers seem small, but we did a sample-size power calculation and it’s just fine,” according to the researcher.

The initial study goal was to confirm earlier promising findings from a study of 370 febrile children in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States, conducted by the Immunopathology of Respiratory, Inflammatory and Infectious Disease Study (IRIS) Consortium, a study in which several of Ms. Barral-Arca’s senior coinvestigators participated. The IRIS investigators demonstrated that the combined expression pattern of two genes – IFI44L and FAM89A – distinguished the bacterial from viral infections with impressive sensitivity and specificity (JAMA. 2016 Aug 23-30;316[8]:835-45).

The two-gene signature performed similarly well in Ms. Barral-Arca’s study. However, when she and her coinvestigators tested the discriminatory power of the two genes individually, they got a surprise: The real-time PCR analysis assessing expression of IFI44L alone performed even better than the two-gene combination, discriminating viral from bacterial infections with 91% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and an area under the curve of 94%. In contrast, the two-gene signature based upon IFI44L and FAM89A had a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 86%, and an area under the curve of 92%. While those differences in performance are small, a single-gene assay saves time, work, and cost, according to Ms. Barral-Arca.

Her group then validated their findings regarding the performance of the IFI44L single-gene signature in two independent cohorts: stored blood samples from the children in the earlier IRIS study, and a group of children with diarrhea of viral or bacterial etiology.

“One gene seems to be enough,” she said. “We have demonstrated in a real-life scenario that host gene expression microarray data can be successfully translated into a fast, highly accurate, and relatively inexpensive in vitro assay that could be implemented in the clinical routine.”

Planned future work includes investigation of how the gene expression evolves over time from fever onset, the possible utility of the assay in noninfectious febrile illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis, and whether the test discriminates viral from bacterial infection in adults.

Ms. Barral-Arca reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, supported by institutional funding.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Bacterial infections quickly can be distinguished from viral infections in febrile children using a novel real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay assessing RNA expression of a single patient gene, according to a proof-of-concept study presented by Ruth Barral-Arca at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The gene of interest – IFI44L – is entwined in a child’s response to infection. It’s upregulated in the presence of viral infection and suppressed in bacterial infection, explained Ms. Barral-Arca, a PhD student at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain).

This investigational real-time PCR assay could provide a major advance over current routine practice, which is to admit a sick febrile child to the hospital, order bacterial cultures, and start parenteral antibiotics presumptively while awaiting the culture results, which usually don’t come back for more than 24 hours. This practice is a step backwards in terms of antibiotic stewardship, because the majority of febrile children have a self-resolving viral infection.

“This is a big problem because a lot of children with viral infections are inappropriately given antibiotics, leading to antimicrobial resistance,” she noted.

Also, misleadingly false-negative bacterial cultures can occur if the causative pathogen wasn’t included in the test, the infection is in a nonaccessible site, or the child has recently been on antibiotics.

All of these shortcomings have led to a new diagnostic strategy based upon measuring the pattern of key host genes upregulated or suppressed during the inflammatory response.

“We’ve seen that, instead of analyzing the bugs, analyzing the host transcriptome response during infection is proving to be a promising tool for disease biomarker identification. And it’s faster. An early differentiation between viral and bacterial patients will help improve triage in emergency departments, decrease the misuse of antibiotics, and guide clinics to a more precise diagnosis. A lot of big hospitals are already doing PCR. They could quickly adopt this kind of analysis,” Ms. Barral-Arca continued.

IPGGutenbergUKLtd/Thinkstock

She presented a pilot study in which the assay was put to the test using multiple blood samples from 14 febrile infants and children up to 6 years of age with microbiologically confirmed bacterial infection, 11 febrile children with confirmed viral infection, and 10 healthy controls.

“I know the numbers seem small, but we did a sample-size power calculation and it’s just fine,” according to the researcher.

The initial study goal was to confirm earlier promising findings from a study of 370 febrile children in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States, conducted by the Immunopathology of Respiratory, Inflammatory and Infectious Disease Study (IRIS) Consortium, a study in which several of Ms. Barral-Arca’s senior coinvestigators participated. The IRIS investigators demonstrated that the combined expression pattern of two genes – IFI44L and FAM89A – distinguished the bacterial from viral infections with impressive sensitivity and specificity (JAMA. 2016 Aug 23-30;316[8]:835-45).

The two-gene signature performed similarly well in Ms. Barral-Arca’s study. However, when she and her coinvestigators tested the discriminatory power of the two genes individually, they got a surprise: The real-time PCR analysis assessing expression of IFI44L alone performed even better than the two-gene combination, discriminating viral from bacterial infections with 91% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and an area under the curve of 94%. In contrast, the two-gene signature based upon IFI44L and FAM89A had a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 86%, and an area under the curve of 92%. While those differences in performance are small, a single-gene assay saves time, work, and cost, according to Ms. Barral-Arca.

Her group then validated their findings regarding the performance of the IFI44L single-gene signature in two independent cohorts: stored blood samples from the children in the earlier IRIS study, and a group of children with diarrhea of viral or bacterial etiology.

“One gene seems to be enough,” she said. “We have demonstrated in a real-life scenario that host gene expression microarray data can be successfully translated into a fast, highly accurate, and relatively inexpensive in vitro assay that could be implemented in the clinical routine.”

Planned future work includes investigation of how the gene expression evolves over time from fever onset, the possible utility of the assay in noninfectious febrile illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis, and whether the test discriminates viral from bacterial infection in adults.

Ms. Barral-Arca reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, supported by institutional funding.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Bacterial infections quickly can be distinguished from viral infections in febrile children using a novel real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay assessing RNA expression of a single patient gene, according to a proof-of-concept study presented by Ruth Barral-Arca at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The gene of interest – IFI44L – is entwined in a child’s response to infection. It’s upregulated in the presence of viral infection and suppressed in bacterial infection, explained Ms. Barral-Arca, a PhD student at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain).

This investigational real-time PCR assay could provide a major advance over current routine practice, which is to admit a sick febrile child to the hospital, order bacterial cultures, and start parenteral antibiotics presumptively while awaiting the culture results, which usually don’t come back for more than 24 hours. This practice is a step backwards in terms of antibiotic stewardship, because the majority of febrile children have a self-resolving viral infection.

“This is a big problem because a lot of children with viral infections are inappropriately given antibiotics, leading to antimicrobial resistance,” she noted.

Also, misleadingly false-negative bacterial cultures can occur if the causative pathogen wasn’t included in the test, the infection is in a nonaccessible site, or the child has recently been on antibiotics.

All of these shortcomings have led to a new diagnostic strategy based upon measuring the pattern of key host genes upregulated or suppressed during the inflammatory response.

“We’ve seen that, instead of analyzing the bugs, analyzing the host transcriptome response during infection is proving to be a promising tool for disease biomarker identification. And it’s faster. An early differentiation between viral and bacterial patients will help improve triage in emergency departments, decrease the misuse of antibiotics, and guide clinics to a more precise diagnosis. A lot of big hospitals are already doing PCR. They could quickly adopt this kind of analysis,” Ms. Barral-Arca continued.

IPGGutenbergUKLtd/Thinkstock

She presented a pilot study in which the assay was put to the test using multiple blood samples from 14 febrile infants and children up to 6 years of age with microbiologically confirmed bacterial infection, 11 febrile children with confirmed viral infection, and 10 healthy controls.

“I know the numbers seem small, but we did a sample-size power calculation and it’s just fine,” according to the researcher.

The initial study goal was to confirm earlier promising findings from a study of 370 febrile children in the United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States, conducted by the Immunopathology of Respiratory, Inflammatory and Infectious Disease Study (IRIS) Consortium, a study in which several of Ms. Barral-Arca’s senior coinvestigators participated. The IRIS investigators demonstrated that the combined expression pattern of two genes – IFI44L and FAM89A – distinguished the bacterial from viral infections with impressive sensitivity and specificity (JAMA. 2016 Aug 23-30;316[8]:835-45).

The two-gene signature performed similarly well in Ms. Barral-Arca’s study. However, when she and her coinvestigators tested the discriminatory power of the two genes individually, they got a surprise: The real-time PCR analysis assessing expression of IFI44L alone performed even better than the two-gene combination, discriminating viral from bacterial infections with 91% sensitivity, 93% specificity, and an area under the curve of 94%. In contrast, the two-gene signature based upon IFI44L and FAM89A had a sensitivity of 91%, a specificity of 86%, and an area under the curve of 92%. While those differences in performance are small, a single-gene assay saves time, work, and cost, according to Ms. Barral-Arca.

Her group then validated their findings regarding the performance of the IFI44L single-gene signature in two independent cohorts: stored blood samples from the children in the earlier IRIS study, and a group of children with diarrhea of viral or bacterial etiology.

“One gene seems to be enough,” she said. “We have demonstrated in a real-life scenario that host gene expression microarray data can be successfully translated into a fast, highly accurate, and relatively inexpensive in vitro assay that could be implemented in the clinical routine.”

Planned future work includes investigation of how the gene expression evolves over time from fever onset, the possible utility of the assay in noninfectious febrile illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis, and whether the test discriminates viral from bacterial infection in adults.

Ms. Barral-Arca reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, supported by institutional funding.

[email protected]

The Society of Hospital Medicine is an organization vested in improving the quality of inpatient medicine by empowering its members with education and providing venues for professional development including networking, advocacy, and leadership advancement. Every year, SHM holds a national conference which is a focused meeting point for over 5,000 hospitalists.

SHM hosts more than 50 local chapters nationwide to increase networking, education, and collaboration within the hospital medicine community. The Wiregrass chapter of SHM is based in the southeast corner of Alabama, covering the counties of lower Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. This year we were recognized as a platinum status chapter, which is the highest status, based on our work and participation to improve the quality of inpatient medicine.

As part of winning the platinum ribbon, we were awarded three complimentary registration scholarships to the SHM Annual Conference in 2019. The chapter leadership met and selected three individuals who have been involved with the chapter actively but have never had an opportunity to experience SHM’s Annual Conference. We selected a first-year resident, Dr. Avani Parrekh; a hospital medicine nurse practitioner, Madison Rivenbark; and a fourth-year medical student who is about to start his internal medicine residency, William Bancroft.

After the meeting we interviewed them to better understand their experience. Below are their thoughts.
 

Avani Parekh, MD

First year, Internal Medicine Residency

Southeast Health Medical Center

Dothan, Ala.

I am so thankful for the opportunity that was given to me by the Wiregrass chapter by sponsoring my attendance at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference in Washington. This was my first SHM conference, and it was truly a rewarding experience.

I thoroughly enjoyed attending the lectures. They were very informative and engaging. Every presenter was so passionate and inspiring. Coming from an “all-female class” of PGY-1 at my program, I especially enjoyed the “Fe(male) in medicine” talk, as well as Quick Talks on women in medicine. The “Updates in Hospital Medicine” session on various topics such as heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis was outstanding. I was excited to apply the knowledge I gained from this event into my patient care.

Overall, it was a well-organized and up-to-date event. I am looking forward to attending more SHM conferences in the future.


 

Madison Rivenbark, NP

Department of Hospital Medicine

Southeast Health Medical Center

Dothan, Ala.

I was extremely fortunate to be selected to receive a scholarship that covered the conference fee for the 2019 SHM Annual Conference. This was my first SHM conference, and it was quite the learning experience. I enjoyed each educational session that I attended. I felt like I was able to bring something home with me that I can incorporate into my practice to better care for the patients that I see each day.

As mentioned above, I learned from each session, but my personal favorite was the “Updates in Hospital Medicine” session. I was very impressed by the enthusiasm of the two speakers. The information provided was presented so that it engaged each attendee.

Not only did I learn a wealth of valuable information that will help me in my career, I gained affirmation concerning my future educational endeavors. I was inspired to pursue a higher level of learning regarding my career. I witnessed this awesome organization that is filled with encouraging and motivating people, and I realized I wanted to be more involved on a local level, and maybe one day, on a larger level. In addition, this conference inspired me to continue to be a lifetime learner and to always crave more knowledge. I am blessed to be a part of hospital medicine. I look forward to the future of this specialty.


 

William Bancroft, MS IV

Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine

Dothan, Ala.

I was honored to have been chosen by the Wiregrass chapter as the medical student representative for the SHM Annual Conference. I have been serving in the local chapter during both my 3rd and 4th years in different roles, from helping as a student liaison for our medical students to executive planning coordinator for events. It was a surprise when I got asked by the chapter to be their student representative, but one that I was very excited to accept.

This was my first medical conference. I had heard about what different conferences were like from many of my attendings, so I had some expectations, but this experience was so much better. I enjoyed meeting and networking with people. I also found myself eagerly waiting to get to the next lecture because I was getting an opportunity to hear about different case studies, new research outcomes, and new standards of care.

It was a real treat to learn about all the new changes to treatment, but even more encouraging to know that most of it was just reinforcing everything my attendings have been teaching us as medical students. I enjoyed my time at the SHM Annual Conference so much that I emailed all my new coresidents and encouraged them to join the Society.
 

Dr. Skandhan is a hospitalist at Southeast Health Medical Center in Dothan, Ala., as well as president and founder of the Wiregrass chapter of SHM.

The Society of Hospital Medicine is an organization vested in improving the quality of inpatient medicine by empowering its members with education and providing venues for professional development including networking, advocacy, and leadership advancement. Every year, SHM holds a national conference which is a focused meeting point for over 5,000 hospitalists.

SHM hosts more than 50 local chapters nationwide to increase networking, education, and collaboration within the hospital medicine community. The Wiregrass chapter of SHM is based in the southeast corner of Alabama, covering the counties of lower Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. This year we were recognized as a platinum status chapter, which is the highest status, based on our work and participation to improve the quality of inpatient medicine.

As part of winning the platinum ribbon, we were awarded three complimentary registration scholarships to the SHM Annual Conference in 2019. The chapter leadership met and selected three individuals who have been involved with the chapter actively but have never had an opportunity to experience SHM’s Annual Conference. We selected a first-year resident, Dr. Avani Parrekh; a hospital medicine nurse practitioner, Madison Rivenbark; and a fourth-year medical student who is about to start his internal medicine residency, William Bancroft.

After the meeting we interviewed them to better understand their experience. Below are their thoughts.
 

Avani Parekh, MD

First year, Internal Medicine Residency

Southeast Health Medical Center

Dothan, Ala.

I am so thankful for the opportunity that was given to me by the Wiregrass chapter by sponsoring my attendance at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference in Washington. This was my first SHM conference, and it was truly a rewarding experience.

I thoroughly enjoyed attending the lectures. They were very informative and engaging. Every presenter was so passionate and inspiring. Coming from an “all-female class” of PGY-1 at my program, I especially enjoyed the “Fe(male) in medicine” talk, as well as Quick Talks on women in medicine. The “Updates in Hospital Medicine” session on various topics such as heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis was outstanding. I was excited to apply the knowledge I gained from this event into my patient care.

Overall, it was a well-organized and up-to-date event. I am looking forward to attending more SHM conferences in the future.


 

Madison Rivenbark, NP

Department of Hospital Medicine

Southeast Health Medical Center

Dothan, Ala.

I was extremely fortunate to be selected to receive a scholarship that covered the conference fee for the 2019 SHM Annual Conference. This was my first SHM conference, and it was quite the learning experience. I enjoyed each educational session that I attended. I felt like I was able to bring something home with me that I can incorporate into my practice to better care for the patients that I see each day.

As mentioned above, I learned from each session, but my personal favorite was the “Updates in Hospital Medicine” session. I was very impressed by the enthusiasm of the two speakers. The information provided was presented so that it engaged each attendee.

Not only did I learn a wealth of valuable information that will help me in my career, I gained affirmation concerning my future educational endeavors. I was inspired to pursue a higher level of learning regarding my career. I witnessed this awesome organization that is filled with encouraging and motivating people, and I realized I wanted to be more involved on a local level, and maybe one day, on a larger level. In addition, this conference inspired me to continue to be a lifetime learner and to always crave more knowledge. I am blessed to be a part of hospital medicine. I look forward to the future of this specialty.


 

William Bancroft, MS IV

Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine

Dothan, Ala.

I was honored to have been chosen by the Wiregrass chapter as the medical student representative for the SHM Annual Conference. I have been serving in the local chapter during both my 3rd and 4th years in different roles, from helping as a student liaison for our medical students to executive planning coordinator for events. It was a surprise when I got asked by the chapter to be their student representative, but one that I was very excited to accept.

This was my first medical conference. I had heard about what different conferences were like from many of my attendings, so I had some expectations, but this experience was so much better. I enjoyed meeting and networking with people. I also found myself eagerly waiting to get to the next lecture because I was getting an opportunity to hear about different case studies, new research outcomes, and new standards of care.

It was a real treat to learn about all the new changes to treatment, but even more encouraging to know that most of it was just reinforcing everything my attendings have been teaching us as medical students. I enjoyed my time at the SHM Annual Conference so much that I emailed all my new coresidents and encouraged them to join the Society.
 

Dr. Skandhan is a hospitalist at Southeast Health Medical Center in Dothan, Ala., as well as president and founder of the Wiregrass chapter of SHM.

The Society of Hospital Medicine is an organization vested in improving the quality of inpatient medicine by empowering its members with education and providing venues for professional development including networking, advocacy, and leadership advancement. Every year, SHM holds a national conference which is a focused meeting point for over 5,000 hospitalists.

SHM hosts more than 50 local chapters nationwide to increase networking, education, and collaboration within the hospital medicine community. The Wiregrass chapter of SHM is based in the southeast corner of Alabama, covering the counties of lower Alabama and the panhandle of Florida. This year we were recognized as a platinum status chapter, which is the highest status, based on our work and participation to improve the quality of inpatient medicine.

As part of winning the platinum ribbon, we were awarded three complimentary registration scholarships to the SHM Annual Conference in 2019. The chapter leadership met and selected three individuals who have been involved with the chapter actively but have never had an opportunity to experience SHM’s Annual Conference. We selected a first-year resident, Dr. Avani Parrekh; a hospital medicine nurse practitioner, Madison Rivenbark; and a fourth-year medical student who is about to start his internal medicine residency, William Bancroft.

After the meeting we interviewed them to better understand their experience. Below are their thoughts.
 

Avani Parekh, MD

First year, Internal Medicine Residency

Southeast Health Medical Center

Dothan, Ala.

I am so thankful for the opportunity that was given to me by the Wiregrass chapter by sponsoring my attendance at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference in Washington. This was my first SHM conference, and it was truly a rewarding experience.

I thoroughly enjoyed attending the lectures. They were very informative and engaging. Every presenter was so passionate and inspiring. Coming from an “all-female class” of PGY-1 at my program, I especially enjoyed the “Fe(male) in medicine” talk, as well as Quick Talks on women in medicine. The “Updates in Hospital Medicine” session on various topics such as heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis was outstanding. I was excited to apply the knowledge I gained from this event into my patient care.

Overall, it was a well-organized and up-to-date event. I am looking forward to attending more SHM conferences in the future.


 

Madison Rivenbark, NP

Department of Hospital Medicine

Southeast Health Medical Center

Dothan, Ala.

I was extremely fortunate to be selected to receive a scholarship that covered the conference fee for the 2019 SHM Annual Conference. This was my first SHM conference, and it was quite the learning experience. I enjoyed each educational session that I attended. I felt like I was able to bring something home with me that I can incorporate into my practice to better care for the patients that I see each day.

As mentioned above, I learned from each session, but my personal favorite was the “Updates in Hospital Medicine” session. I was very impressed by the enthusiasm of the two speakers. The information provided was presented so that it engaged each attendee.

Not only did I learn a wealth of valuable information that will help me in my career, I gained affirmation concerning my future educational endeavors. I was inspired to pursue a higher level of learning regarding my career. I witnessed this awesome organization that is filled with encouraging and motivating people, and I realized I wanted to be more involved on a local level, and maybe one day, on a larger level. In addition, this conference inspired me to continue to be a lifetime learner and to always crave more knowledge. I am blessed to be a part of hospital medicine. I look forward to the future of this specialty.


 

William Bancroft, MS IV

Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine

Dothan, Ala.

I was honored to have been chosen by the Wiregrass chapter as the medical student representative for the SHM Annual Conference. I have been serving in the local chapter during both my 3rd and 4th years in different roles, from helping as a student liaison for our medical students to executive planning coordinator for events. It was a surprise when I got asked by the chapter to be their student representative, but one that I was very excited to accept.

This was my first medical conference. I had heard about what different conferences were like from many of my attendings, so I had some expectations, but this experience was so much better. I enjoyed meeting and networking with people. I also found myself eagerly waiting to get to the next lecture because I was getting an opportunity to hear about different case studies, new research outcomes, and new standards of care.

It was a real treat to learn about all the new changes to treatment, but even more encouraging to know that most of it was just reinforcing everything my attendings have been teaching us as medical students. I enjoyed my time at the SHM Annual Conference so much that I emailed all my new coresidents and encouraged them to join the Society.
 

Dr. Skandhan is a hospitalist at Southeast Health Medical Center in Dothan, Ala., as well as president and founder of the Wiregrass chapter of SHM.

I rush into the room at 4:30 p.m., hoping for a quick visit and maybe an early exit from the hospital; I had been asked to see Mr. Bryant in room 6765 with sigmoid volvulus.

“Hey, Dr. Hass, my brother!” he says with a huge smile. Somehow, he must have gotten a glimpse of me before I could see him. I peek over the nurse’s shoulder, and then I see that unforgettable smile with only a few teeth and big bright eyes. Immediately I recognize him and think, “How could I have forgotten his name? Ray – like a beam of light.” He certainly had not forgotten me.

“It’s been more than a year since I was last here,” he says proudly.

When we met during his last hospitalization, I was struck by a thought that implanted itself deep in my brain: This guy is the happiest person I have ever met. And after what must have been 18 hard months for him, he is still smiling – and more than that, he is radiating love.

The fact that he is the “happiest person” is made more remarkable by all the hardship he has endured. Ray was born with cerebral palsy and didn’t walk until he was 10. The continuous spasms in his muscles led to severe cervical disc disease. His worsening pain and weakness were missed by his health care providers until he had lost significant strength in his hands and legs. When he finally got an MRI and then emergency surgery, it was too late. He never regained the dexterity of his hands or the ability to walk. He can climb onto his scooter chair only with the help of a lift.

“Wow! How you been, Ray?”

He replies with a phrase that jumped back out from my memory as he was saying it: “I just wake up every day and think about what I can do to make people happy.”

The goosebumps rise on my arms; I remember feeling this same sense of awe the last time we met – a feeling of real spiritual love for this guy.

“Today I feel so much better, too. I want to thank y’all who helped my stomach go down. Man, it got so huge, I thought I might blow up.” One of the consequences of the nerve damage he sustained is a very slow gut that has led to a stretched-out colon. The other day, his big, floppy colon got twisted, and neither our gastroenterologist nor radiologist was able to untwist it. He still has a tube in his rectum to help decompress his bowel.

Ray fills me in on the details in the slightly strained and slurred speech that sometimes comes with cerebral palsy. As he relays his story, my mind goes to work trying to diagnosis this mysterious case of happiness. How can I not try to get to the origins of this wellspring of love? I can’t help but thinking: Was it Ray’s joy and his speech impediment that made him seem childlike, or was it some brain injury that blessedly knocked out his self-pity? I would be wallowing in self-pity if I were as gravely disabled as him.

After a moment’s reflection, I recall the research on the amazing stability of our happiness set point: Good things and bad only move our happiness for a while before we return to our innate level of happiness. I see I had likely fallen prey to a stereotype of the disabled as heroic for just being themselves. Ray’s happiness is largely because of his lack of self-absorption and his focus on service and love.

Finishing our conversation and leaving the room feeling enlivened, I realize that Ray‘s generous spirit is a gift.

That night, my heart aches. I think about the inadequate care that led to Ray’s profound loss of function, leading to a surge of anger toward our flawed health care system – one that routinely lets down the most vulnerable among us.

The next day, two sisters and an aunt join Ray in his room. They ask for hugs, and I happily supply them. “Ray told us about you,” says Sheila, one of his sisters.

“Well, we have been talking about him here at the hospital, because he brightens everyone’s day. He is truly amazing. Has Ray always been so full of love?” I say, hoping to get some insight into his remarkable spirit.

Tonya, his aunt, responds first. “We were raised that way – to look for the good and keep love in our hearts. But Ray has always been the best. He never, ever complains. He brings joy to so many people. You should see him every day out on his scooter. That’s how he got that big sore on his butt.”

Ray indeed had developed a pressure sore, one that was going to need some thoughtful, ongoing care.

“But I finally got the right kind of cushion, before it was real hard,” he says.

I move from hospitalist mode to primary care mode and ask about his home equipment and his dental care. But they all want to keep talking about love.

“If doctors showed more love and their human side, they could bring more healing,” his sister says.

After 20 minutes of chatting, I pause. It is my last day on service, I had run out of medical reason to stay and I have others to see. So, I reluctantly give my goodbye hugs and leave. At the door, I turn back around. “Hey, Ray, can I get a picture with you?”

“Yeah, I want one with you, too!”

So, not surprisingly, Ray never complains. Maybe his spinal cord injury wasn’t from negligent care. Maybe he was so accustomed to looking past discomfort and too busy with his ministry of love, it didn’t occur to him to seek care.

Still, such a tragedy that he lost so much of the little mobility he did have. But maybe not so bad. His injury brought him back in contact with me and our staff. He is still waking up trying to make people happy and I can see his efforts are working. “He made my day!” I hear from a nurse. There is a healthy buzz at the nurses’ station after visits to his room.

Before walking out the door, he gives me an awkward fist bump from the bed and says, “I want to thank y’all again for everything. And I want you to know I love you.”

I find myself tearing up. “I love you too, my brother. And I am the one who should be grateful, Ray.” Saying it, I feel myself playing a part in the cycle of gratitude. Even small gifts put us under an obligation to give back. With great gifts, the desire to give is inescapable.

There is only one Ray, but he has given me something to aspire toward and what feels like urgency to do it. I want to “wake up each day thinking about ways to make other people happy.”

And understanding the potency of the gift from him has alerted me to the value of looking for other gifts and other inspirations from those I care for – something those of us who tend to be in the “doing” part of the provider-patient relationship can easy miss.

I will never be the beacon of light and love that Ray is, but being compelled to be my most authentic caring self with him, I see that for years I have held back – in the name of professionalism – the positive emotions that naturally arise from the work I do. I will try to shine and try to connect with that “Ray of light” residing in all my patients. I hope, too, that the cycle of giving Ray started will continue spreading to all those I care for.

Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. This article appeared originally in SHM's official blog The Hospital Leader. Read more recent posts here.

I rush into the room at 4:30 p.m., hoping for a quick visit and maybe an early exit from the hospital; I had been asked to see Mr. Bryant in room 6765 with sigmoid volvulus.

“Hey, Dr. Hass, my brother!” he says with a huge smile. Somehow, he must have gotten a glimpse of me before I could see him. I peek over the nurse’s shoulder, and then I see that unforgettable smile with only a few teeth and big bright eyes. Immediately I recognize him and think, “How could I have forgotten his name? Ray – like a beam of light.” He certainly had not forgotten me.

“It’s been more than a year since I was last here,” he says proudly.

When we met during his last hospitalization, I was struck by a thought that implanted itself deep in my brain: This guy is the happiest person I have ever met. And after what must have been 18 hard months for him, he is still smiling – and more than that, he is radiating love.

The fact that he is the “happiest person” is made more remarkable by all the hardship he has endured. Ray was born with cerebral palsy and didn’t walk until he was 10. The continuous spasms in his muscles led to severe cervical disc disease. His worsening pain and weakness were missed by his health care providers until he had lost significant strength in his hands and legs. When he finally got an MRI and then emergency surgery, it was too late. He never regained the dexterity of his hands or the ability to walk. He can climb onto his scooter chair only with the help of a lift.

“Wow! How you been, Ray?”

He replies with a phrase that jumped back out from my memory as he was saying it: “I just wake up every day and think about what I can do to make people happy.”

The goosebumps rise on my arms; I remember feeling this same sense of awe the last time we met – a feeling of real spiritual love for this guy.

“Today I feel so much better, too. I want to thank y’all who helped my stomach go down. Man, it got so huge, I thought I might blow up.” One of the consequences of the nerve damage he sustained is a very slow gut that has led to a stretched-out colon. The other day, his big, floppy colon got twisted, and neither our gastroenterologist nor radiologist was able to untwist it. He still has a tube in his rectum to help decompress his bowel.

Ray fills me in on the details in the slightly strained and slurred speech that sometimes comes with cerebral palsy. As he relays his story, my mind goes to work trying to diagnosis this mysterious case of happiness. How can I not try to get to the origins of this wellspring of love? I can’t help but thinking: Was it Ray’s joy and his speech impediment that made him seem childlike, or was it some brain injury that blessedly knocked out his self-pity? I would be wallowing in self-pity if I were as gravely disabled as him.

After a moment’s reflection, I recall the research on the amazing stability of our happiness set point: Good things and bad only move our happiness for a while before we return to our innate level of happiness. I see I had likely fallen prey to a stereotype of the disabled as heroic for just being themselves. Ray’s happiness is largely because of his lack of self-absorption and his focus on service and love.

Finishing our conversation and leaving the room feeling enlivened, I realize that Ray‘s generous spirit is a gift.

That night, my heart aches. I think about the inadequate care that led to Ray’s profound loss of function, leading to a surge of anger toward our flawed health care system – one that routinely lets down the most vulnerable among us.

The next day, two sisters and an aunt join Ray in his room. They ask for hugs, and I happily supply them. “Ray told us about you,” says Sheila, one of his sisters.

“Well, we have been talking about him here at the hospital, because he brightens everyone’s day. He is truly amazing. Has Ray always been so full of love?” I say, hoping to get some insight into his remarkable spirit.

Tonya, his aunt, responds first. “We were raised that way – to look for the good and keep love in our hearts. But Ray has always been the best. He never, ever complains. He brings joy to so many people. You should see him every day out on his scooter. That’s how he got that big sore on his butt.”

Ray indeed had developed a pressure sore, one that was going to need some thoughtful, ongoing care.

“But I finally got the right kind of cushion, before it was real hard,” he says.

I move from hospitalist mode to primary care mode and ask about his home equipment and his dental care. But they all want to keep talking about love.

“If doctors showed more love and their human side, they could bring more healing,” his sister says.

After 20 minutes of chatting, I pause. It is my last day on service, I had run out of medical reason to stay and I have others to see. So, I reluctantly give my goodbye hugs and leave. At the door, I turn back around. “Hey, Ray, can I get a picture with you?”

“Yeah, I want one with you, too!”

So, not surprisingly, Ray never complains. Maybe his spinal cord injury wasn’t from negligent care. Maybe he was so accustomed to looking past discomfort and too busy with his ministry of love, it didn’t occur to him to seek care.

Still, such a tragedy that he lost so much of the little mobility he did have. But maybe not so bad. His injury brought him back in contact with me and our staff. He is still waking up trying to make people happy and I can see his efforts are working. “He made my day!” I hear from a nurse. There is a healthy buzz at the nurses’ station after visits to his room.

Before walking out the door, he gives me an awkward fist bump from the bed and says, “I want to thank y’all again for everything. And I want you to know I love you.”

I find myself tearing up. “I love you too, my brother. And I am the one who should be grateful, Ray.” Saying it, I feel myself playing a part in the cycle of gratitude. Even small gifts put us under an obligation to give back. With great gifts, the desire to give is inescapable.

There is only one Ray, but he has given me something to aspire toward and what feels like urgency to do it. I want to “wake up each day thinking about ways to make other people happy.”

And understanding the potency of the gift from him has alerted me to the value of looking for other gifts and other inspirations from those I care for – something those of us who tend to be in the “doing” part of the provider-patient relationship can easy miss.

I will never be the beacon of light and love that Ray is, but being compelled to be my most authentic caring self with him, I see that for years I have held back – in the name of professionalism – the positive emotions that naturally arise from the work I do. I will try to shine and try to connect with that “Ray of light” residing in all my patients. I hope, too, that the cycle of giving Ray started will continue spreading to all those I care for.

Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. This article appeared originally in SHM's official blog The Hospital Leader. Read more recent posts here.

I rush into the room at 4:30 p.m., hoping for a quick visit and maybe an early exit from the hospital; I had been asked to see Mr. Bryant in room 6765 with sigmoid volvulus.

“Hey, Dr. Hass, my brother!” he says with a huge smile. Somehow, he must have gotten a glimpse of me before I could see him. I peek over the nurse’s shoulder, and then I see that unforgettable smile with only a few teeth and big bright eyes. Immediately I recognize him and think, “How could I have forgotten his name? Ray – like a beam of light.” He certainly had not forgotten me.

“It’s been more than a year since I was last here,” he says proudly.

When we met during his last hospitalization, I was struck by a thought that implanted itself deep in my brain: This guy is the happiest person I have ever met. And after what must have been 18 hard months for him, he is still smiling – and more than that, he is radiating love.

The fact that he is the “happiest person” is made more remarkable by all the hardship he has endured. Ray was born with cerebral palsy and didn’t walk until he was 10. The continuous spasms in his muscles led to severe cervical disc disease. His worsening pain and weakness were missed by his health care providers until he had lost significant strength in his hands and legs. When he finally got an MRI and then emergency surgery, it was too late. He never regained the dexterity of his hands or the ability to walk. He can climb onto his scooter chair only with the help of a lift.

“Wow! How you been, Ray?”

He replies with a phrase that jumped back out from my memory as he was saying it: “I just wake up every day and think about what I can do to make people happy.”

The goosebumps rise on my arms; I remember feeling this same sense of awe the last time we met – a feeling of real spiritual love for this guy.

“Today I feel so much better, too. I want to thank y’all who helped my stomach go down. Man, it got so huge, I thought I might blow up.” One of the consequences of the nerve damage he sustained is a very slow gut that has led to a stretched-out colon. The other day, his big, floppy colon got twisted, and neither our gastroenterologist nor radiologist was able to untwist it. He still has a tube in his rectum to help decompress his bowel.

Ray fills me in on the details in the slightly strained and slurred speech that sometimes comes with cerebral palsy. As he relays his story, my mind goes to work trying to diagnosis this mysterious case of happiness. How can I not try to get to the origins of this wellspring of love? I can’t help but thinking: Was it Ray’s joy and his speech impediment that made him seem childlike, or was it some brain injury that blessedly knocked out his self-pity? I would be wallowing in self-pity if I were as gravely disabled as him.

After a moment’s reflection, I recall the research on the amazing stability of our happiness set point: Good things and bad only move our happiness for a while before we return to our innate level of happiness. I see I had likely fallen prey to a stereotype of the disabled as heroic for just being themselves. Ray’s happiness is largely because of his lack of self-absorption and his focus on service and love.

Finishing our conversation and leaving the room feeling enlivened, I realize that Ray‘s generous spirit is a gift.

That night, my heart aches. I think about the inadequate care that led to Ray’s profound loss of function, leading to a surge of anger toward our flawed health care system – one that routinely lets down the most vulnerable among us.

The next day, two sisters and an aunt join Ray in his room. They ask for hugs, and I happily supply them. “Ray told us about you,” says Sheila, one of his sisters.

“Well, we have been talking about him here at the hospital, because he brightens everyone’s day. He is truly amazing. Has Ray always been so full of love?” I say, hoping to get some insight into his remarkable spirit.

Tonya, his aunt, responds first. “We were raised that way – to look for the good and keep love in our hearts. But Ray has always been the best. He never, ever complains. He brings joy to so many people. You should see him every day out on his scooter. That’s how he got that big sore on his butt.”

Ray indeed had developed a pressure sore, one that was going to need some thoughtful, ongoing care.

“But I finally got the right kind of cushion, before it was real hard,” he says.

I move from hospitalist mode to primary care mode and ask about his home equipment and his dental care. But they all want to keep talking about love.

“If doctors showed more love and their human side, they could bring more healing,” his sister says.

After 20 minutes of chatting, I pause. It is my last day on service, I had run out of medical reason to stay and I have others to see. So, I reluctantly give my goodbye hugs and leave. At the door, I turn back around. “Hey, Ray, can I get a picture with you?”

“Yeah, I want one with you, too!”

So, not surprisingly, Ray never complains. Maybe his spinal cord injury wasn’t from negligent care. Maybe he was so accustomed to looking past discomfort and too busy with his ministry of love, it didn’t occur to him to seek care.

Still, such a tragedy that he lost so much of the little mobility he did have. But maybe not so bad. His injury brought him back in contact with me and our staff. He is still waking up trying to make people happy and I can see his efforts are working. “He made my day!” I hear from a nurse. There is a healthy buzz at the nurses’ station after visits to his room.

Before walking out the door, he gives me an awkward fist bump from the bed and says, “I want to thank y’all again for everything. And I want you to know I love you.”

I find myself tearing up. “I love you too, my brother. And I am the one who should be grateful, Ray.” Saying it, I feel myself playing a part in the cycle of gratitude. Even small gifts put us under an obligation to give back. With great gifts, the desire to give is inescapable.

There is only one Ray, but he has given me something to aspire toward and what feels like urgency to do it. I want to “wake up each day thinking about ways to make other people happy.”

And understanding the potency of the gift from him has alerted me to the value of looking for other gifts and other inspirations from those I care for – something those of us who tend to be in the “doing” part of the provider-patient relationship can easy miss.

I will never be the beacon of light and love that Ray is, but being compelled to be my most authentic caring self with him, I see that for years I have held back – in the name of professionalism – the positive emotions that naturally arise from the work I do. I will try to shine and try to connect with that “Ray of light” residing in all my patients. I hope, too, that the cycle of giving Ray started will continue spreading to all those I care for.

Dr. Hass is a hospitalist at Sutter Health in Oakland, Calif. This article appeared originally in SHM's official blog The Hospital Leader. Read more recent posts here.

Since the inception of hospital medicine more than 2 decades ago, the total number of hospitalists has rapidly increased to more than 60,000. The Society of Hospital Medicine’s State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM), published biennially, captures new changes in our growing field and sheds light on current practice trends.

Among its findings, the 2018 SoHM Report reassuringly reveals that financial support from hospitals to hospital medicine groups (HMGs) continues to climb, even in the setting of rising health care costs and ongoing budget pressure.

The median amount of financial support per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician for HMGs serving adults was $176,658, according to the 2018 SoHM Report, which is up 12% from the 2016 median of $157,535. While there is no correlation between group sizes and the amount of financial support per FTE physician, there are significant differences across regions, with HMGs in the Midwest garnering the highest median support, at $193,121 per FTE physician.

The report also reveals big differences by employment model. For example, private multispecialty and primary care medical groups receive much less financial support ($58,396 per FTE physician) than HMGs employed by hospitals. This likely signifies that their main source of revenue is from professional service fees. Regardless of the types of employment models, past surveys have reported more than 95% of HMGs receive support from their hospitals to help cover expenses.

The median amount of financial support per FTE provider (including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and locum tenens) was $134,300, which represents a 3.3% decrease, compared with the 2016 SoHM Report. For the first time, the 2018 SoHM also collected data on financial support per “work relative value unit” (wRVU) in addition to support per FTE physician and support per FTE provider. HMGs and their hospitals can use support per wRVU data to evaluate the support per unit of work, regardless of who (whether it is a physician, an advanced practice provider, and/or others) performed that work.

The median amount of financial support per wRVU for HMGs serving adults in 2018 was $41.92, with academic HMGs reporting a higher amount ($45.81) than nonacademic HMGs ($41.28). It will be interesting to track these numbers over time.

One of the most intriguing findings from the SHM’s 2018 SoHM Report is that financial support has risen despite relatively flat professional fee productivity (see Figure 1). Productivity, calculated as work relative value units (wRVUs) per physician declined slightly from 4,252 in 2016 to 4,147 in 2018.

There may be a few reasons why wRVUs per physician has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Many hospitals emphasize quality of care above provider productivity. The volume-to-value shift in theory serves as a means to reduce hospital-associated complications, length of stay, and readmission rates, thereby avoiding penalties and saving the overall costs for the hospitals in the long run.

Hospitalists involved in quality improvement projects and other essential nonclinical work perform tasks that are rarely captured in the wRVU metric. Improving patient experience, one of the Triple Aim components, necessitates extra time and effort, which also are nonbillable. In addition, increasing productivity can be challenging, a double-edged sword that may further escalate burnout and turnover rates. The static productivity may portend that it has leveled off or hit the ceiling in spite of ongoing efforts to improve efficacy.

In my view, the decision to invest in hospitalists for their contributions and dedications should not be determined based on a single metric such as wRVUs per physician. Hospitalist work on quality improvements; patient safety; efficiency, from direct bedside patient care to nonclinical efforts; teaching; research; involvements in various committees; administrative tasks; and leadership roles in improving health care systems are immeasurable. These are the reasons that most hospitals chose to adopt the hospitalist model and continue to support it. In fact, demand for hospitalists still outstrips supply, as evidenced by more than half of the hospital medicine groups with unfilled positions and an overall high turnover rate per 2018 SoHM data.

Although hospitalists are needed for the value that they provide, they should not take the status quo for granted. Instead, in return for the favorable financial support and in appreciation of being valued, hospitalists have a responsibility to prove that they are the right group chosen to do the work and help achieve their hospital’s mission and goals.

Dr. Vuong is a hospitalist at HealthPartners Medical Group in St Paul, Minn., and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

References

Afsar N. Looking into the Future and Making History. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):31.

Beresford L. The State of Hospital Medicine in 2018. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):1-11.

FitzGerald S. Not a Time for Modesty. Oct. 2009. Retrieved from https://acphospitalist.org/archives/2009/10/value.htm.

Watcher RM et al. Zero to 50,000 – The 20th Anniversary of the Hospitalist. N Eng J Med. 2016. 375(11):1009-11.

Since the inception of hospital medicine more than 2 decades ago, the total number of hospitalists has rapidly increased to more than 60,000. The Society of Hospital Medicine’s State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM), published biennially, captures new changes in our growing field and sheds light on current practice trends.

Among its findings, the 2018 SoHM Report reassuringly reveals that financial support from hospitals to hospital medicine groups (HMGs) continues to climb, even in the setting of rising health care costs and ongoing budget pressure.

The median amount of financial support per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician for HMGs serving adults was $176,658, according to the 2018 SoHM Report, which is up 12% from the 2016 median of $157,535. While there is no correlation between group sizes and the amount of financial support per FTE physician, there are significant differences across regions, with HMGs in the Midwest garnering the highest median support, at $193,121 per FTE physician.

The report also reveals big differences by employment model. For example, private multispecialty and primary care medical groups receive much less financial support ($58,396 per FTE physician) than HMGs employed by hospitals. This likely signifies that their main source of revenue is from professional service fees. Regardless of the types of employment models, past surveys have reported more than 95% of HMGs receive support from their hospitals to help cover expenses.

The median amount of financial support per FTE provider (including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and locum tenens) was $134,300, which represents a 3.3% decrease, compared with the 2016 SoHM Report. For the first time, the 2018 SoHM also collected data on financial support per “work relative value unit” (wRVU) in addition to support per FTE physician and support per FTE provider. HMGs and their hospitals can use support per wRVU data to evaluate the support per unit of work, regardless of who (whether it is a physician, an advanced practice provider, and/or others) performed that work.

The median amount of financial support per wRVU for HMGs serving adults in 2018 was $41.92, with academic HMGs reporting a higher amount ($45.81) than nonacademic HMGs ($41.28). It will be interesting to track these numbers over time.

One of the most intriguing findings from the SHM’s 2018 SoHM Report is that financial support has risen despite relatively flat professional fee productivity (see Figure 1). Productivity, calculated as work relative value units (wRVUs) per physician declined slightly from 4,252 in 2016 to 4,147 in 2018.

There may be a few reasons why wRVUs per physician has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Many hospitals emphasize quality of care above provider productivity. The volume-to-value shift in theory serves as a means to reduce hospital-associated complications, length of stay, and readmission rates, thereby avoiding penalties and saving the overall costs for the hospitals in the long run.

Hospitalists involved in quality improvement projects and other essential nonclinical work perform tasks that are rarely captured in the wRVU metric. Improving patient experience, one of the Triple Aim components, necessitates extra time and effort, which also are nonbillable. In addition, increasing productivity can be challenging, a double-edged sword that may further escalate burnout and turnover rates. The static productivity may portend that it has leveled off or hit the ceiling in spite of ongoing efforts to improve efficacy.

In my view, the decision to invest in hospitalists for their contributions and dedications should not be determined based on a single metric such as wRVUs per physician. Hospitalist work on quality improvements; patient safety; efficiency, from direct bedside patient care to nonclinical efforts; teaching; research; involvements in various committees; administrative tasks; and leadership roles in improving health care systems are immeasurable. These are the reasons that most hospitals chose to adopt the hospitalist model and continue to support it. In fact, demand for hospitalists still outstrips supply, as evidenced by more than half of the hospital medicine groups with unfilled positions and an overall high turnover rate per 2018 SoHM data.

Although hospitalists are needed for the value that they provide, they should not take the status quo for granted. Instead, in return for the favorable financial support and in appreciation of being valued, hospitalists have a responsibility to prove that they are the right group chosen to do the work and help achieve their hospital’s mission and goals.

Dr. Vuong is a hospitalist at HealthPartners Medical Group in St Paul, Minn., and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

References

Afsar N. Looking into the Future and Making History. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):31.

Beresford L. The State of Hospital Medicine in 2018. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):1-11.

FitzGerald S. Not a Time for Modesty. Oct. 2009. Retrieved from https://acphospitalist.org/archives/2009/10/value.htm.

Watcher RM et al. Zero to 50,000 – The 20th Anniversary of the Hospitalist. N Eng J Med. 2016. 375(11):1009-11.

Since the inception of hospital medicine more than 2 decades ago, the total number of hospitalists has rapidly increased to more than 60,000. The Society of Hospital Medicine’s State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM), published biennially, captures new changes in our growing field and sheds light on current practice trends.

Among its findings, the 2018 SoHM Report reassuringly reveals that financial support from hospitals to hospital medicine groups (HMGs) continues to climb, even in the setting of rising health care costs and ongoing budget pressure.

The median amount of financial support per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician for HMGs serving adults was $176,658, according to the 2018 SoHM Report, which is up 12% from the 2016 median of $157,535. While there is no correlation between group sizes and the amount of financial support per FTE physician, there are significant differences across regions, with HMGs in the Midwest garnering the highest median support, at $193,121 per FTE physician.

The report also reveals big differences by employment model. For example, private multispecialty and primary care medical groups receive much less financial support ($58,396 per FTE physician) than HMGs employed by hospitals. This likely signifies that their main source of revenue is from professional service fees. Regardless of the types of employment models, past surveys have reported more than 95% of HMGs receive support from their hospitals to help cover expenses.

The median amount of financial support per FTE provider (including nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and locum tenens) was $134,300, which represents a 3.3% decrease, compared with the 2016 SoHM Report. For the first time, the 2018 SoHM also collected data on financial support per “work relative value unit” (wRVU) in addition to support per FTE physician and support per FTE provider. HMGs and their hospitals can use support per wRVU data to evaluate the support per unit of work, regardless of who (whether it is a physician, an advanced practice provider, and/or others) performed that work.

The median amount of financial support per wRVU for HMGs serving adults in 2018 was $41.92, with academic HMGs reporting a higher amount ($45.81) than nonacademic HMGs ($41.28). It will be interesting to track these numbers over time.

One of the most intriguing findings from the SHM’s 2018 SoHM Report is that financial support has risen despite relatively flat professional fee productivity (see Figure 1). Productivity, calculated as work relative value units (wRVUs) per physician declined slightly from 4,252 in 2016 to 4,147 in 2018.

There may be a few reasons why wRVUs per physician has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Many hospitals emphasize quality of care above provider productivity. The volume-to-value shift in theory serves as a means to reduce hospital-associated complications, length of stay, and readmission rates, thereby avoiding penalties and saving the overall costs for the hospitals in the long run.

Hospitalists involved in quality improvement projects and other essential nonclinical work perform tasks that are rarely captured in the wRVU metric. Improving patient experience, one of the Triple Aim components, necessitates extra time and effort, which also are nonbillable. In addition, increasing productivity can be challenging, a double-edged sword that may further escalate burnout and turnover rates. The static productivity may portend that it has leveled off or hit the ceiling in spite of ongoing efforts to improve efficacy.

In my view, the decision to invest in hospitalists for their contributions and dedications should not be determined based on a single metric such as wRVUs per physician. Hospitalist work on quality improvements; patient safety; efficiency, from direct bedside patient care to nonclinical efforts; teaching; research; involvements in various committees; administrative tasks; and leadership roles in improving health care systems are immeasurable. These are the reasons that most hospitals chose to adopt the hospitalist model and continue to support it. In fact, demand for hospitalists still outstrips supply, as evidenced by more than half of the hospital medicine groups with unfilled positions and an overall high turnover rate per 2018 SoHM data.

Although hospitalists are needed for the value that they provide, they should not take the status quo for granted. Instead, in return for the favorable financial support and in appreciation of being valued, hospitalists have a responsibility to prove that they are the right group chosen to do the work and help achieve their hospital’s mission and goals.

Dr. Vuong is a hospitalist at HealthPartners Medical Group in St Paul, Minn., and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

References

Afsar N. Looking into the Future and Making History. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):31.

Beresford L. The State of Hospital Medicine in 2018. Hospitalist. 2019;23(1):1-11.

FitzGerald S. Not a Time for Modesty. Oct. 2009. Retrieved from https://acphospitalist.org/archives/2009/10/value.htm.

Watcher RM et al. Zero to 50,000 – The 20th Anniversary of the Hospitalist. N Eng J Med. 2016. 375(11):1009-11.

Using eosinophil levels to guide steroid treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was found to be noninferior to standard treatment in terms of the number of days out of hospital and alive, new research has found.

Writing in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers reported the outcomes of a multicenter, controlled, open-label trial comparing eosinophil-guided and standard therapy with systemic corticosteroids in 318 patients with COPD.

Pradeesh Sivapalan, MD, of the respiratory medicine section of Herlev and Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors wrote that eosinophilic inflammation had been seen in 20%-40% of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients with higher eosinophilic blood counts were at increased risk of acute exacerbations but were also more likely to benefit from corticosteroid treatment.

In the eosinophil-guided therapy arm of the study, 159 patients received 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on day 1, then from the second day were treated with 37.5 mg of prednisolone oral tablet daily ­– up to 4 days – only on days when their blood eosinophil count was at least 0.3 x 10^⁹ cells/L. In the control arm, 159 patients also received 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on day 1, followed by 37.5 mg of prednisolone tablets daily for 4 days.

After 14 days, there were no significant differences between the two groups for mean days alive and out of hospital.

There were 12 more cases of readmission with COPD, including three fatalities, in the eosinophil-guided group within the first month. However the authors said these differences were not statistically significant, but “because the study was not powered to detect differences in this absolute risk range, we cannot rule out that this was an actual harm effect from the interventional strategy.”

The eosinophil-guided therapy group did show more than a 50% reduction in the median duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy, which was 2 days in the eosinophil-guided group, compared with 5 days in the control group (P less than .0001), and the differences between the two groups remained significant at days 30 and 90.

“The tested strategy was successful in reducing the exposure to systemic corticosteroids, but we cannot exclude the possibility that a more aggressive algorithm, such as a single dose of systemic corticosteroid, might have been more effective,” the authors wrote.

At the 90-day follow-up, there were no differences in the number of infections requiring antibiotic treatment, nor in dyspepsia, ulcer complications, or initiation of new proton-pump inhibitor treatment.

The study was supported by the Danish Regions Medical Fund and the Danish Council for Independent Research. Two authors declared personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. No other conflicts were declared.

SOURCE: Sivapalan P et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019, May 20. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30176-6.

Using eosinophil levels to guide steroid treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was found to be noninferior to standard treatment in terms of the number of days out of hospital and alive, new research has found.

Writing in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers reported the outcomes of a multicenter, controlled, open-label trial comparing eosinophil-guided and standard therapy with systemic corticosteroids in 318 patients with COPD.

Pradeesh Sivapalan, MD, of the respiratory medicine section of Herlev and Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors wrote that eosinophilic inflammation had been seen in 20%-40% of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients with higher eosinophilic blood counts were at increased risk of acute exacerbations but were also more likely to benefit from corticosteroid treatment.

In the eosinophil-guided therapy arm of the study, 159 patients received 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on day 1, then from the second day were treated with 37.5 mg of prednisolone oral tablet daily ­– up to 4 days – only on days when their blood eosinophil count was at least 0.3 x 10^⁹ cells/L. In the control arm, 159 patients also received 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on day 1, followed by 37.5 mg of prednisolone tablets daily for 4 days.

After 14 days, there were no significant differences between the two groups for mean days alive and out of hospital.

There were 12 more cases of readmission with COPD, including three fatalities, in the eosinophil-guided group within the first month. However the authors said these differences were not statistically significant, but “because the study was not powered to detect differences in this absolute risk range, we cannot rule out that this was an actual harm effect from the interventional strategy.”

The eosinophil-guided therapy group did show more than a 50% reduction in the median duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy, which was 2 days in the eosinophil-guided group, compared with 5 days in the control group (P less than .0001), and the differences between the two groups remained significant at days 30 and 90.

“The tested strategy was successful in reducing the exposure to systemic corticosteroids, but we cannot exclude the possibility that a more aggressive algorithm, such as a single dose of systemic corticosteroid, might have been more effective,” the authors wrote.

At the 90-day follow-up, there were no differences in the number of infections requiring antibiotic treatment, nor in dyspepsia, ulcer complications, or initiation of new proton-pump inhibitor treatment.

The study was supported by the Danish Regions Medical Fund and the Danish Council for Independent Research. Two authors declared personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. No other conflicts were declared.

SOURCE: Sivapalan P et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019, May 20. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30176-6.

Using eosinophil levels to guide steroid treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was found to be noninferior to standard treatment in terms of the number of days out of hospital and alive, new research has found.

Writing in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine, researchers reported the outcomes of a multicenter, controlled, open-label trial comparing eosinophil-guided and standard therapy with systemic corticosteroids in 318 patients with COPD.

Pradeesh Sivapalan, MD, of the respiratory medicine section of Herlev and Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors wrote that eosinophilic inflammation had been seen in 20%-40% of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. Patients with higher eosinophilic blood counts were at increased risk of acute exacerbations but were also more likely to benefit from corticosteroid treatment.

In the eosinophil-guided therapy arm of the study, 159 patients received 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on day 1, then from the second day were treated with 37.5 mg of prednisolone oral tablet daily ­– up to 4 days – only on days when their blood eosinophil count was at least 0.3 x 10^⁹ cells/L. In the control arm, 159 patients also received 80 mg of intravenous methylprednisolone on day 1, followed by 37.5 mg of prednisolone tablets daily for 4 days.

After 14 days, there were no significant differences between the two groups for mean days alive and out of hospital.

There were 12 more cases of readmission with COPD, including three fatalities, in the eosinophil-guided group within the first month. However the authors said these differences were not statistically significant, but “because the study was not powered to detect differences in this absolute risk range, we cannot rule out that this was an actual harm effect from the interventional strategy.”

The eosinophil-guided therapy group did show more than a 50% reduction in the median duration of systemic corticosteroid therapy, which was 2 days in the eosinophil-guided group, compared with 5 days in the control group (P less than .0001), and the differences between the two groups remained significant at days 30 and 90.

“The tested strategy was successful in reducing the exposure to systemic corticosteroids, but we cannot exclude the possibility that a more aggressive algorithm, such as a single dose of systemic corticosteroid, might have been more effective,” the authors wrote.

At the 90-day follow-up, there were no differences in the number of infections requiring antibiotic treatment, nor in dyspepsia, ulcer complications, or initiation of new proton-pump inhibitor treatment.

The study was supported by the Danish Regions Medical Fund and the Danish Council for Independent Research. Two authors declared personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work. No other conflicts were declared.

SOURCE: Sivapalan P et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019, May 20. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30176-6.