All Content

Short-term prescription NSAIDs appeared safe in high-risk patients with musculoskeletal disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension, or heart failure, in a retrospective, observational study.

The findings of the study challenge the Choosing Wisely campaign of the American Society of Nephrology, which recommends against NSAIDs for high-risk patients, according to lead author Zachary Bouck, MPH, of the department of medicine at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, and his coauthors.

“While these recommendations offer basic analgesics and nonpharmacological treatments as preferable alternatives, it is both possible and disconcerting that some physicians might instead prescribe opioids, which typically pose elevated risk of adverse events and dependence vs. NSAIDs,” the investigators wrote. The report is in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They sought to estimate the frequency and characteristics of NSAID prescriptions while also looking for associations with acute renal and cardiovascular complications. The retrospective, observational study involved 814,049 adults with musculoskeletal disease and 7,365 primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada. All patients were aged 65 years and older, and had been diagnosed with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure in the past year. Instances in which a patient was prescribed an NSAID within 7 days of presentation were included.

To assess for associations between prescription NSAIDs and negative outcomes, the investigators searched for renal or cardiovascular complications within 37 days of presentation. Over-the-counter NSAID usage was not evaluated.

There were 224,825 visits. An NSAID was prescribed after 9.3% of these visits.

Renal and cardiovascular outcomes were similar between high-risk patients who received a prescription NSAID and those who did not (absolute risk reduction, .0003; P = .74).

“The similarity in risk between users and nonusers, each group primarily consisting of patients with hypertension, suggests that the short-term association of NSAIDs in high-risk patients with musculoskeletal pain may not be as dangerous as initially thought,” the authors concluded.

The investigators found that prescribing rates varied widely, ranging from 6.7% to 14.4% of different health regions, and from 0.9% to 60.3% among 688 primary care practices, with “substantial variation in use” among primary care physicians.

The authors acknowledged limitations, including the use of administrative data, but noted that their study, showing substantial variations in NSAID prescribing, “along with the identification of patient and physician characteristics associated with NSAID use, presents an opportunity for quality improvement, with some potential targets for any resulting interventions,” they wrote.

The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences funded the study. The authors reported compensation from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the department of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Women’s College Hospital.

SOURCE: Bouck et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4273.

Short-term prescription NSAIDs appeared safe in high-risk patients with musculoskeletal disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension, or heart failure, in a retrospective, observational study.

The findings of the study challenge the Choosing Wisely campaign of the American Society of Nephrology, which recommends against NSAIDs for high-risk patients, according to lead author Zachary Bouck, MPH, of the department of medicine at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, and his coauthors.

“While these recommendations offer basic analgesics and nonpharmacological treatments as preferable alternatives, it is both possible and disconcerting that some physicians might instead prescribe opioids, which typically pose elevated risk of adverse events and dependence vs. NSAIDs,” the investigators wrote. The report is in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They sought to estimate the frequency and characteristics of NSAID prescriptions while also looking for associations with acute renal and cardiovascular complications. The retrospective, observational study involved 814,049 adults with musculoskeletal disease and 7,365 primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada. All patients were aged 65 years and older, and had been diagnosed with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure in the past year. Instances in which a patient was prescribed an NSAID within 7 days of presentation were included.

To assess for associations between prescription NSAIDs and negative outcomes, the investigators searched for renal or cardiovascular complications within 37 days of presentation. Over-the-counter NSAID usage was not evaluated.

There were 224,825 visits. An NSAID was prescribed after 9.3% of these visits.

Renal and cardiovascular outcomes were similar between high-risk patients who received a prescription NSAID and those who did not (absolute risk reduction, .0003; P = .74).

“The similarity in risk between users and nonusers, each group primarily consisting of patients with hypertension, suggests that the short-term association of NSAIDs in high-risk patients with musculoskeletal pain may not be as dangerous as initially thought,” the authors concluded.

The investigators found that prescribing rates varied widely, ranging from 6.7% to 14.4% of different health regions, and from 0.9% to 60.3% among 688 primary care practices, with “substantial variation in use” among primary care physicians.

The authors acknowledged limitations, including the use of administrative data, but noted that their study, showing substantial variations in NSAID prescribing, “along with the identification of patient and physician characteristics associated with NSAID use, presents an opportunity for quality improvement, with some potential targets for any resulting interventions,” they wrote.

The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences funded the study. The authors reported compensation from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the department of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Women’s College Hospital.

SOURCE: Bouck et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4273.

Short-term prescription NSAIDs appeared safe in high-risk patients with musculoskeletal disease and chronic kidney disease (CKD), hypertension, or heart failure, in a retrospective, observational study.

The findings of the study challenge the Choosing Wisely campaign of the American Society of Nephrology, which recommends against NSAIDs for high-risk patients, according to lead author Zachary Bouck, MPH, of the department of medicine at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, and his coauthors.

“While these recommendations offer basic analgesics and nonpharmacological treatments as preferable alternatives, it is both possible and disconcerting that some physicians might instead prescribe opioids, which typically pose elevated risk of adverse events and dependence vs. NSAIDs,” the investigators wrote. The report is in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They sought to estimate the frequency and characteristics of NSAID prescriptions while also looking for associations with acute renal and cardiovascular complications. The retrospective, observational study involved 814,049 adults with musculoskeletal disease and 7,365 primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada. All patients were aged 65 years and older, and had been diagnosed with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure in the past year. Instances in which a patient was prescribed an NSAID within 7 days of presentation were included.

To assess for associations between prescription NSAIDs and negative outcomes, the investigators searched for renal or cardiovascular complications within 37 days of presentation. Over-the-counter NSAID usage was not evaluated.

There were 224,825 visits. An NSAID was prescribed after 9.3% of these visits.

Renal and cardiovascular outcomes were similar between high-risk patients who received a prescription NSAID and those who did not (absolute risk reduction, .0003; P = .74).

“The similarity in risk between users and nonusers, each group primarily consisting of patients with hypertension, suggests that the short-term association of NSAIDs in high-risk patients with musculoskeletal pain may not be as dangerous as initially thought,” the authors concluded.

The investigators found that prescribing rates varied widely, ranging from 6.7% to 14.4% of different health regions, and from 0.9% to 60.3% among 688 primary care practices, with “substantial variation in use” among primary care physicians.

The authors acknowledged limitations, including the use of administrative data, but noted that their study, showing substantial variations in NSAID prescribing, “along with the identification of patient and physician characteristics associated with NSAID use, presents an opportunity for quality improvement, with some potential targets for any resulting interventions,” they wrote.

The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences funded the study. The authors reported compensation from the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the department of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Women’s College Hospital.

SOURCE: Bouck et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 8. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4273.

SAN ANTONIO – While septic shock mortality has decreased since the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines were introduced, discharge trends for survivors have not changed significantly over time, a recent analysis suggests.

invisioner/Thinkstock

The percentage of survivors discharged to subacute rehab or long-term facilities did not change appreciably over time, according to the 10-year retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

However, average length of stay did significantly trend downward over the decade analyzed, while total charge per septic shock admission significantly increased, according to investigator Di Pan, DO, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and his colleagues.

This is one of few studies looking at outcomes in survivors of septic shock, as most analyses have primarily focused on mortality outcomes, the investigators said.

Their analysis was based on the 2004 to 2014 National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample databases and included patients with a primary diagnosis of septic shock at discharge.

Out of nearly 1.8 million patients with septic shock in that cohort, about 1 million survived, according to data Dr. Pan and colleagues provided in an abstract of the presentation.

In-hospital mortality decreased from 51.7% in 2004 to 39.3% in 2014 (P less than .001), the investigators reported.

The proportion of survivors discharged to subacute rehab or long-term acute care facilities was 61.9% in 2004, and similarly, 62.4% in 2014 (P = .1), while the percentage discharged home was 17.1% in 2004 and 15.1% in 2014 (P = 0.55).

However, there was a small but statistically significant downtick in mean length of stay, from 12.6 days in 2004 to 11.05 days in 2014, the investigators said. Meanwhile, total hospitalization charges surged from $105,776 in 2004 to $134,394 over the same time period.

The first edition of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock was published in March 2004 in Critical Care Medicine.

Future studies and clinical trials should look beyond mortality outcomes to additionally evaluate morbidity outcomes in septic shock survivors, Dr. Pan and coauthors said in their report.

The researchers had no relationships to disclose relevant to the presented study.

SOURCE: Pan D et al. CHEST 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.339.

SAN ANTONIO – While septic shock mortality has decreased since the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines were introduced, discharge trends for survivors have not changed significantly over time, a recent analysis suggests.

invisioner/Thinkstock

The percentage of survivors discharged to subacute rehab or long-term facilities did not change appreciably over time, according to the 10-year retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

However, average length of stay did significantly trend downward over the decade analyzed, while total charge per septic shock admission significantly increased, according to investigator Di Pan, DO, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and his colleagues.

This is one of few studies looking at outcomes in survivors of septic shock, as most analyses have primarily focused on mortality outcomes, the investigators said.

Their analysis was based on the 2004 to 2014 National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample databases and included patients with a primary diagnosis of septic shock at discharge.

Out of nearly 1.8 million patients with septic shock in that cohort, about 1 million survived, according to data Dr. Pan and colleagues provided in an abstract of the presentation.

In-hospital mortality decreased from 51.7% in 2004 to 39.3% in 2014 (P less than .001), the investigators reported.

The proportion of survivors discharged to subacute rehab or long-term acute care facilities was 61.9% in 2004, and similarly, 62.4% in 2014 (P = .1), while the percentage discharged home was 17.1% in 2004 and 15.1% in 2014 (P = 0.55).

However, there was a small but statistically significant downtick in mean length of stay, from 12.6 days in 2004 to 11.05 days in 2014, the investigators said. Meanwhile, total hospitalization charges surged from $105,776 in 2004 to $134,394 over the same time period.

The first edition of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock was published in March 2004 in Critical Care Medicine.

Future studies and clinical trials should look beyond mortality outcomes to additionally evaluate morbidity outcomes in septic shock survivors, Dr. Pan and coauthors said in their report.

The researchers had no relationships to disclose relevant to the presented study.

SOURCE: Pan D et al. CHEST 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.339.

SAN ANTONIO – While septic shock mortality has decreased since the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines were introduced, discharge trends for survivors have not changed significantly over time, a recent analysis suggests.

invisioner/Thinkstock

The percentage of survivors discharged to subacute rehab or long-term facilities did not change appreciably over time, according to the 10-year retrospective analysis, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

However, average length of stay did significantly trend downward over the decade analyzed, while total charge per septic shock admission significantly increased, according to investigator Di Pan, DO, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and his colleagues.

This is one of few studies looking at outcomes in survivors of septic shock, as most analyses have primarily focused on mortality outcomes, the investigators said.

Their analysis was based on the 2004 to 2014 National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample databases and included patients with a primary diagnosis of septic shock at discharge.

Out of nearly 1.8 million patients with septic shock in that cohort, about 1 million survived, according to data Dr. Pan and colleagues provided in an abstract of the presentation.

In-hospital mortality decreased from 51.7% in 2004 to 39.3% in 2014 (P less than .001), the investigators reported.

The proportion of survivors discharged to subacute rehab or long-term acute care facilities was 61.9% in 2004, and similarly, 62.4% in 2014 (P = .1), while the percentage discharged home was 17.1% in 2004 and 15.1% in 2014 (P = 0.55).

However, there was a small but statistically significant downtick in mean length of stay, from 12.6 days in 2004 to 11.05 days in 2014, the investigators said. Meanwhile, total hospitalization charges surged from $105,776 in 2004 to $134,394 over the same time period.

The first edition of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock was published in March 2004 in Critical Care Medicine.

Future studies and clinical trials should look beyond mortality outcomes to additionally evaluate morbidity outcomes in septic shock survivors, Dr. Pan and coauthors said in their report.

The researchers had no relationships to disclose relevant to the presented study.

SOURCE: Pan D et al. CHEST 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.339.

Background: Previous studies have shown that perioperative gabapentin has no effect on remote pain cessation but have not linked it with effects on remote opioid cessation. Also, most trials were limited to immediate postoperative use during hospital admission; limited data were available with extensive postoperative longitudinal follow-up.

One caveat to the outcomes is that use of a gabapentin regimen may have increased after discharge date, which could have biased the outcome.

Bottom line: Perioperative gabapentin may promote opioid cessation and prevent the development of chronic opioid use after surgery.

Citation: Hah J et al. Effect of perioperative gabapentin on postoperative pain resolution and opioid cessation in a mixed surgical cohort. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):303-11.

Dr. Katsouli is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Background: Previous studies have shown that perioperative gabapentin has no effect on remote pain cessation but have not linked it with effects on remote opioid cessation. Also, most trials were limited to immediate postoperative use during hospital admission; limited data were available with extensive postoperative longitudinal follow-up.

One caveat to the outcomes is that use of a gabapentin regimen may have increased after discharge date, which could have biased the outcome.

Bottom line: Perioperative gabapentin may promote opioid cessation and prevent the development of chronic opioid use after surgery.

Citation: Hah J et al. Effect of perioperative gabapentin on postoperative pain resolution and opioid cessation in a mixed surgical cohort. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):303-11.

Dr. Katsouli is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Background: Previous studies have shown that perioperative gabapentin has no effect on remote pain cessation but have not linked it with effects on remote opioid cessation. Also, most trials were limited to immediate postoperative use during hospital admission; limited data were available with extensive postoperative longitudinal follow-up.

One caveat to the outcomes is that use of a gabapentin regimen may have increased after discharge date, which could have biased the outcome.

Bottom line: Perioperative gabapentin may promote opioid cessation and prevent the development of chronic opioid use after surgery.

Citation: Hah J et al. Effect of perioperative gabapentin on postoperative pain resolution and opioid cessation in a mixed surgical cohort. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):303-11.

Dr. Katsouli is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

On behalf of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, I’m thrilled to introduce the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM) and the resumption of this monthly Survey Insights column written by committee members.

It’s a bit like giving birth. A 9-month–long process that started last January with the excitement of launching the survey and encouraging hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to participate. Then the long, drawn-out process of validating and analyzing data, and organizing it into tables and charts, watching our baby grow and take shape before our eyes, with a few small hiccups along the way. Then graphic design and the agonizing process of copy editing – over and over until our eyes crossed – and printing.

Like all expectant parents, by August we were saying, “Enough already; when will this ever end?”

But we finally have a baby, and what proud parents we are! Here are a couple of key things you should know about the 2018 SoHM:

• The total number of HMGs participating in this year’s survey was marginally lower than in 2016 (569 this year vs. 595 in 2016), but the respondent groups are much more diverse. While more than half of respondent HMGs (52%) are employed by hospitals or health systems, multistate management companies employ 25%, and universities or their affiliates employ 12%. More pediatric hospitalist groups (38) and HMGs that serve both adults and children (31) participated this year, compared with 2016, and almost twice as many academic HMGs participated as in the previous survey (96 this year vs. 59 in 2016).
• The survey content is more wide-ranging than ever. As usual, SHM licensed hospitalist compensation and productivity data from the Medical Group Management Association for inclusion in this report, and the SoHM also covers just about every other aspect of hospitalist group structure and operations imaginable. In addition to traditional questions regarding scope of services, staffing and scheduling models, leadership configuration, and financial support, this year’s report includes new information on:

• Hospitalist comanagement roles with surgical and medical subspecialties.

• Information about unfilled positions and how they are covered (including locum tenens use).
• Utilization of dedicated daytime admitters.
• Prevalence of geographic or unit-based assignment models.
• Responsibility for CPT code selection.
• Amount of financial support per wRVU.

The report has retained its colorful, easy-to-read report layout and the user-friendly interface of the digital version. And because we have more diversity this year with regard to HMG employment models, we have been able to reintroduce findings by employment model.

The 2018 SoHM report is now available for purchase at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm. I encourage you to obtain the SoHM report for yourself; you’ll almost certainly find more than one interesting and useful tidbit of information. Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be – they tell you only what currently is.

New best practices not reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your practice and are the best judges of what is right for you.
 

Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM, is a partner with Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, and a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

On behalf of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, I’m thrilled to introduce the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM) and the resumption of this monthly Survey Insights column written by committee members.

It’s a bit like giving birth. A 9-month–long process that started last January with the excitement of launching the survey and encouraging hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to participate. Then the long, drawn-out process of validating and analyzing data, and organizing it into tables and charts, watching our baby grow and take shape before our eyes, with a few small hiccups along the way. Then graphic design and the agonizing process of copy editing – over and over until our eyes crossed – and printing.

Like all expectant parents, by August we were saying, “Enough already; when will this ever end?”

But we finally have a baby, and what proud parents we are! Here are a couple of key things you should know about the 2018 SoHM:

• The total number of HMGs participating in this year’s survey was marginally lower than in 2016 (569 this year vs. 595 in 2016), but the respondent groups are much more diverse. While more than half of respondent HMGs (52%) are employed by hospitals or health systems, multistate management companies employ 25%, and universities or their affiliates employ 12%. More pediatric hospitalist groups (38) and HMGs that serve both adults and children (31) participated this year, compared with 2016, and almost twice as many academic HMGs participated as in the previous survey (96 this year vs. 59 in 2016).
• The survey content is more wide-ranging than ever. As usual, SHM licensed hospitalist compensation and productivity data from the Medical Group Management Association for inclusion in this report, and the SoHM also covers just about every other aspect of hospitalist group structure and operations imaginable. In addition to traditional questions regarding scope of services, staffing and scheduling models, leadership configuration, and financial support, this year’s report includes new information on:

• Hospitalist comanagement roles with surgical and medical subspecialties.

• Information about unfilled positions and how they are covered (including locum tenens use).
• Utilization of dedicated daytime admitters.
• Prevalence of geographic or unit-based assignment models.
• Responsibility for CPT code selection.
• Amount of financial support per wRVU.

The report has retained its colorful, easy-to-read report layout and the user-friendly interface of the digital version. And because we have more diversity this year with regard to HMG employment models, we have been able to reintroduce findings by employment model.

The 2018 SoHM report is now available for purchase at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm. I encourage you to obtain the SoHM report for yourself; you’ll almost certainly find more than one interesting and useful tidbit of information. Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be – they tell you only what currently is.

New best practices not reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your practice and are the best judges of what is right for you.
 

Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM, is a partner with Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, and a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

On behalf of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, I’m thrilled to introduce the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SoHM) and the resumption of this monthly Survey Insights column written by committee members.

It’s a bit like giving birth. A 9-month–long process that started last January with the excitement of launching the survey and encouraging hospital medicine groups (HMGs) to participate. Then the long, drawn-out process of validating and analyzing data, and organizing it into tables and charts, watching our baby grow and take shape before our eyes, with a few small hiccups along the way. Then graphic design and the agonizing process of copy editing – over and over until our eyes crossed – and printing.

Like all expectant parents, by August we were saying, “Enough already; when will this ever end?”

But we finally have a baby, and what proud parents we are! Here are a couple of key things you should know about the 2018 SoHM:

• The total number of HMGs participating in this year’s survey was marginally lower than in 2016 (569 this year vs. 595 in 2016), but the respondent groups are much more diverse. While more than half of respondent HMGs (52%) are employed by hospitals or health systems, multistate management companies employ 25%, and universities or their affiliates employ 12%. More pediatric hospitalist groups (38) and HMGs that serve both adults and children (31) participated this year, compared with 2016, and almost twice as many academic HMGs participated as in the previous survey (96 this year vs. 59 in 2016).
• The survey content is more wide-ranging than ever. As usual, SHM licensed hospitalist compensation and productivity data from the Medical Group Management Association for inclusion in this report, and the SoHM also covers just about every other aspect of hospitalist group structure and operations imaginable. In addition to traditional questions regarding scope of services, staffing and scheduling models, leadership configuration, and financial support, this year’s report includes new information on:

• Hospitalist comanagement roles with surgical and medical subspecialties.

• Information about unfilled positions and how they are covered (including locum tenens use).
• Utilization of dedicated daytime admitters.
• Prevalence of geographic or unit-based assignment models.
• Responsibility for CPT code selection.
• Amount of financial support per wRVU.

The report has retained its colorful, easy-to-read report layout and the user-friendly interface of the digital version. And because we have more diversity this year with regard to HMG employment models, we have been able to reintroduce findings by employment model.

The 2018 SoHM report is now available for purchase at www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm. I encourage you to obtain the SoHM report for yourself; you’ll almost certainly find more than one interesting and useful tidbit of information. Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be – they tell you only what currently is.

New best practices not reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your practice and are the best judges of what is right for you.
 

Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM, is a partner with Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, and a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

SAN ANTONIO – COPD patients with pulmonary circulation disorders were more than four times as likely to need invasive ventilation after noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failed for acute exacerbations, found a new study.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

Patients with fluid and electrolyte abnormalities or alcohol abuse also had a greater risk of escalating beyond NIV for exacerbations, according to the findings.

“Patients with these underlying conditions should be monitored closely, especially individuals with existing pulmonary disorders as they are at highest risk,” Di Pan, DO, of Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, reported at annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The researchers used the 2012-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to retrospectively analyze data from 73,480 patients, average age 67.8 years, who had a primary diagnosis of COPD exacerbation and who had received initial treatment with NIV in their first 24 hours after hospitalization. The report is in CHEST^® Journal(2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.340).

The researchers examined associations between NIV failure and 29 Elixhauser comorbidity measures to identify what clinical characteristics might predict the need for invasive ventilation. They defined NIV failure as requiring intubation at any time within 30 days of admission.

Pulmonary circulation disorders emerged as the strongest predictor of the need for intubation, with a fourfold increase in relative risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19, P less than .001). Alcohol abuse (HR: 1.85, P = .01) and fluid and electrolyte abnormalities (HR: 1.3, P less than .001) followed as additional factors associated with NIV failure. The latter included irregularities in potassium or sodium, acid-base disorders, hypervolemia and hypovolemia.

Among the 3,740 patients with alcohol abuse, additional statistically significant associations with intubation included a slightly higher mean age, female sex, and the mean Charlson comorbidity index. Mean age of those requiring intubation in this group was 62.28 years, compared 61.47 years among those in whom NIV was adequate (P = .03). Among those intubated, 30.2% of the patients were female, compared with 26.3% female patients in the nonintubated group.

Among the 26,150 patients with fluid, electrolyte and acid-base disturbances, younger patients were more likely to require intubation: The average age of those needing intubation was 67.23 years, compared with 69.3 years for those non-intubated (P less than .001). While a higher Charlson index (2.83 vs. 2.53) was again correlated with greater risk of needing intubation (P less than .001), males were now more likely to require intubation: 58.1% of those without intubation were female, compared with 53.9% of those needing intubation (P less than .001).

Within the 890 patients with pulmonary circulation disorders, mean age was 68.03 years for intubation and 70.77 years for nonintubation (P less than .001). In this group, 56.4% of the patients requiring intubation were female, compared to 47.9% of patients not intubated. The average Charlson index was lower (3.11) among those requiring intubation than among those not needing it (3.57, P less than .001).

The findings were limited by the lack of disease severity stratification and use of now-outdated ICD-9 coding. The researchers also lacked detailed clinical data, such as lab values, imaging results, and vital signs, and Dr. Pan acknowledged the broad variation within the diagnoses of the also-broad Elixhauser comorbidity index.

“For the next steps, we can do a stratified analysis” to identify which specific pulmonary circulation diseases primarily account for the association with intubation, Dr. Pan said.

No external funding was noted. The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Pan D. et al. CHEST 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.340.

SAN ANTONIO – COPD patients with pulmonary circulation disorders were more than four times as likely to need invasive ventilation after noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failed for acute exacerbations, found a new study.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

Patients with fluid and electrolyte abnormalities or alcohol abuse also had a greater risk of escalating beyond NIV for exacerbations, according to the findings.

“Patients with these underlying conditions should be monitored closely, especially individuals with existing pulmonary disorders as they are at highest risk,” Di Pan, DO, of Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, reported at annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The researchers used the 2012-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to retrospectively analyze data from 73,480 patients, average age 67.8 years, who had a primary diagnosis of COPD exacerbation and who had received initial treatment with NIV in their first 24 hours after hospitalization. The report is in CHEST^® Journal(2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.340).

The researchers examined associations between NIV failure and 29 Elixhauser comorbidity measures to identify what clinical characteristics might predict the need for invasive ventilation. They defined NIV failure as requiring intubation at any time within 30 days of admission.

Pulmonary circulation disorders emerged as the strongest predictor of the need for intubation, with a fourfold increase in relative risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19, P less than .001). Alcohol abuse (HR: 1.85, P = .01) and fluid and electrolyte abnormalities (HR: 1.3, P less than .001) followed as additional factors associated with NIV failure. The latter included irregularities in potassium or sodium, acid-base disorders, hypervolemia and hypovolemia.

Among the 3,740 patients with alcohol abuse, additional statistically significant associations with intubation included a slightly higher mean age, female sex, and the mean Charlson comorbidity index. Mean age of those requiring intubation in this group was 62.28 years, compared 61.47 years among those in whom NIV was adequate (P = .03). Among those intubated, 30.2% of the patients were female, compared with 26.3% female patients in the nonintubated group.

Among the 26,150 patients with fluid, electrolyte and acid-base disturbances, younger patients were more likely to require intubation: The average age of those needing intubation was 67.23 years, compared with 69.3 years for those non-intubated (P less than .001). While a higher Charlson index (2.83 vs. 2.53) was again correlated with greater risk of needing intubation (P less than .001), males were now more likely to require intubation: 58.1% of those without intubation were female, compared with 53.9% of those needing intubation (P less than .001).

Within the 890 patients with pulmonary circulation disorders, mean age was 68.03 years for intubation and 70.77 years for nonintubation (P less than .001). In this group, 56.4% of the patients requiring intubation were female, compared to 47.9% of patients not intubated. The average Charlson index was lower (3.11) among those requiring intubation than among those not needing it (3.57, P less than .001).

The findings were limited by the lack of disease severity stratification and use of now-outdated ICD-9 coding. The researchers also lacked detailed clinical data, such as lab values, imaging results, and vital signs, and Dr. Pan acknowledged the broad variation within the diagnoses of the also-broad Elixhauser comorbidity index.

“For the next steps, we can do a stratified analysis” to identify which specific pulmonary circulation diseases primarily account for the association with intubation, Dr. Pan said.

No external funding was noted. The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Pan D. et al. CHEST 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.340.

SAN ANTONIO – COPD patients with pulmonary circulation disorders were more than four times as likely to need invasive ventilation after noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failed for acute exacerbations, found a new study.

Tara Haelle/MDedge News

Patients with fluid and electrolyte abnormalities or alcohol abuse also had a greater risk of escalating beyond NIV for exacerbations, according to the findings.

“Patients with these underlying conditions should be monitored closely, especially individuals with existing pulmonary disorders as they are at highest risk,” Di Pan, DO, of Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, reported at annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

The researchers used the 2012-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to retrospectively analyze data from 73,480 patients, average age 67.8 years, who had a primary diagnosis of COPD exacerbation and who had received initial treatment with NIV in their first 24 hours after hospitalization. The report is in CHEST^® Journal(2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.340).

The researchers examined associations between NIV failure and 29 Elixhauser comorbidity measures to identify what clinical characteristics might predict the need for invasive ventilation. They defined NIV failure as requiring intubation at any time within 30 days of admission.

Pulmonary circulation disorders emerged as the strongest predictor of the need for intubation, with a fourfold increase in relative risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19, P less than .001). Alcohol abuse (HR: 1.85, P = .01) and fluid and electrolyte abnormalities (HR: 1.3, P less than .001) followed as additional factors associated with NIV failure. The latter included irregularities in potassium or sodium, acid-base disorders, hypervolemia and hypovolemia.

Among the 3,740 patients with alcohol abuse, additional statistically significant associations with intubation included a slightly higher mean age, female sex, and the mean Charlson comorbidity index. Mean age of those requiring intubation in this group was 62.28 years, compared 61.47 years among those in whom NIV was adequate (P = .03). Among those intubated, 30.2% of the patients were female, compared with 26.3% female patients in the nonintubated group.

Among the 26,150 patients with fluid, electrolyte and acid-base disturbances, younger patients were more likely to require intubation: The average age of those needing intubation was 67.23 years, compared with 69.3 years for those non-intubated (P less than .001). While a higher Charlson index (2.83 vs. 2.53) was again correlated with greater risk of needing intubation (P less than .001), males were now more likely to require intubation: 58.1% of those without intubation were female, compared with 53.9% of those needing intubation (P less than .001).

Within the 890 patients with pulmonary circulation disorders, mean age was 68.03 years for intubation and 70.77 years for nonintubation (P less than .001). In this group, 56.4% of the patients requiring intubation were female, compared to 47.9% of patients not intubated. The average Charlson index was lower (3.11) among those requiring intubation than among those not needing it (3.57, P less than .001).

The findings were limited by the lack of disease severity stratification and use of now-outdated ICD-9 coding. The researchers also lacked detailed clinical data, such as lab values, imaging results, and vital signs, and Dr. Pan acknowledged the broad variation within the diagnoses of the also-broad Elixhauser comorbidity index.

“For the next steps, we can do a stratified analysis” to identify which specific pulmonary circulation diseases primarily account for the association with intubation, Dr. Pan said.

No external funding was noted. The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Pan D. et al. CHEST 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.340.

SAN ANTONIO – Chronic liver disease increased mortality risk by up to about 80% in patients with pneumonia, according to an investigator who presented results of a large retrospective analysis.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Liver disease increased the risk of intubation by 39% and increased length of stay by 1 day in the study, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

These findings have implications for clinicians and the scoring systems they use to evaluate patients with pneumonia, according to investigator Zin Mar Htun, MD, internal medicine resident at Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital and Presence Saint Joseph Hospital, Chicago.

“We should recognize the importance of chronic liver disease as an independent risk factor for worse outcomes in pneumonia, regardless of the clinical findings or other coexisting comorbidities,” Dr. Htun said in a podium presentation.

Traditional scoring systems for evaluating pneumonia severity do not incorporate hepatic function status, she said.

“We need to come up with a better scoring system that recognizes comorbidities better than the Patient Safety Indicator scoring,” she told attendees at the meeting.

In their study, Dr. Htun and coinvestigator Muhammad Gul, MD, used the 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to look at pneumonia patients with or without a liver disease diagnosis.

Intubation was done in 14.2% of pneumonia patients with chronic liver disease present, compared with 10.6% of patients with no chronic liver disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.48) in one of their analyses, which included 17,528 pneumonia patients with a liver disease diagnosis and 17,528 pneumonia patients with no such diagnosis, propensity score-matched for age, gender, and Charlson comorbidities.

Length of stay was 8.76 and 7.83 days, respectively, for pneumonia patients with and without chronic liver disease (P less than .001), the propensity score-matched analysis further showed. In-hospital mortality was 10.5% and 6.9% for the liver disease and no liver disease groups in this analysis (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70).

In a regression analysis looking at 1.5 million pneumonia patients, of whom about 51,000 had chronic liver disease, the odds ratio for mortality was 1.82 (95% CI, 1.76-1.88; P less than .001), Dr. Htun further reported.

The pathogens causing pneumonia in patients with chronic liver disease were about the same as those in other hospitalized patients, she said in her presentation.

These are “compelling” results that suggest liver disease should considered as a factor in the development of future pneumonia scoring systems, according to Zachary Q. Morris, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital.

Creators of scoring systems may err on the side of making them “simplistic” so they are accessible and easy to analyze, Dr. Morris said in an interview.

“There comes a point in time that maybe you do need to have another layer of complexity to it,” added Dr. Morris, who moderated the original research session where Dr. Htun presented her results.

Both Dr. Htun and Dr. Gul reported that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Htun ZM, et al. CHEST 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.862.

SAN ANTONIO – Chronic liver disease increased mortality risk by up to about 80% in patients with pneumonia, according to an investigator who presented results of a large retrospective analysis.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Liver disease increased the risk of intubation by 39% and increased length of stay by 1 day in the study, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

These findings have implications for clinicians and the scoring systems they use to evaluate patients with pneumonia, according to investigator Zin Mar Htun, MD, internal medicine resident at Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital and Presence Saint Joseph Hospital, Chicago.

“We should recognize the importance of chronic liver disease as an independent risk factor for worse outcomes in pneumonia, regardless of the clinical findings or other coexisting comorbidities,” Dr. Htun said in a podium presentation.

Traditional scoring systems for evaluating pneumonia severity do not incorporate hepatic function status, she said.

“We need to come up with a better scoring system that recognizes comorbidities better than the Patient Safety Indicator scoring,” she told attendees at the meeting.

In their study, Dr. Htun and coinvestigator Muhammad Gul, MD, used the 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to look at pneumonia patients with or without a liver disease diagnosis.

Intubation was done in 14.2% of pneumonia patients with chronic liver disease present, compared with 10.6% of patients with no chronic liver disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.48) in one of their analyses, which included 17,528 pneumonia patients with a liver disease diagnosis and 17,528 pneumonia patients with no such diagnosis, propensity score-matched for age, gender, and Charlson comorbidities.

Length of stay was 8.76 and 7.83 days, respectively, for pneumonia patients with and without chronic liver disease (P less than .001), the propensity score-matched analysis further showed. In-hospital mortality was 10.5% and 6.9% for the liver disease and no liver disease groups in this analysis (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70).

In a regression analysis looking at 1.5 million pneumonia patients, of whom about 51,000 had chronic liver disease, the odds ratio for mortality was 1.82 (95% CI, 1.76-1.88; P less than .001), Dr. Htun further reported.

The pathogens causing pneumonia in patients with chronic liver disease were about the same as those in other hospitalized patients, she said in her presentation.

These are “compelling” results that suggest liver disease should considered as a factor in the development of future pneumonia scoring systems, according to Zachary Q. Morris, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital.

Creators of scoring systems may err on the side of making them “simplistic” so they are accessible and easy to analyze, Dr. Morris said in an interview.

“There comes a point in time that maybe you do need to have another layer of complexity to it,” added Dr. Morris, who moderated the original research session where Dr. Htun presented her results.

Both Dr. Htun and Dr. Gul reported that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Htun ZM, et al. CHEST 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.862.

SAN ANTONIO – Chronic liver disease increased mortality risk by up to about 80% in patients with pneumonia, according to an investigator who presented results of a large retrospective analysis.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Liver disease increased the risk of intubation by 39% and increased length of stay by 1 day in the study, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

These findings have implications for clinicians and the scoring systems they use to evaluate patients with pneumonia, according to investigator Zin Mar Htun, MD, internal medicine resident at Louis A. Weiss Memorial Hospital and Presence Saint Joseph Hospital, Chicago.

“We should recognize the importance of chronic liver disease as an independent risk factor for worse outcomes in pneumonia, regardless of the clinical findings or other coexisting comorbidities,” Dr. Htun said in a podium presentation.

Traditional scoring systems for evaluating pneumonia severity do not incorporate hepatic function status, she said.

“We need to come up with a better scoring system that recognizes comorbidities better than the Patient Safety Indicator scoring,” she told attendees at the meeting.

In their study, Dr. Htun and coinvestigator Muhammad Gul, MD, used the 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to look at pneumonia patients with or without a liver disease diagnosis.

Intubation was done in 14.2% of pneumonia patients with chronic liver disease present, compared with 10.6% of patients with no chronic liver disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.48) in one of their analyses, which included 17,528 pneumonia patients with a liver disease diagnosis and 17,528 pneumonia patients with no such diagnosis, propensity score-matched for age, gender, and Charlson comorbidities.

Length of stay was 8.76 and 7.83 days, respectively, for pneumonia patients with and without chronic liver disease (P less than .001), the propensity score-matched analysis further showed. In-hospital mortality was 10.5% and 6.9% for the liver disease and no liver disease groups in this analysis (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70).

In a regression analysis looking at 1.5 million pneumonia patients, of whom about 51,000 had chronic liver disease, the odds ratio for mortality was 1.82 (95% CI, 1.76-1.88; P less than .001), Dr. Htun further reported.

The pathogens causing pneumonia in patients with chronic liver disease were about the same as those in other hospitalized patients, she said in her presentation.

These are “compelling” results that suggest liver disease should considered as a factor in the development of future pneumonia scoring systems, according to Zachary Q. Morris, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital.

Creators of scoring systems may err on the side of making them “simplistic” so they are accessible and easy to analyze, Dr. Morris said in an interview.

“There comes a point in time that maybe you do need to have another layer of complexity to it,” added Dr. Morris, who moderated the original research session where Dr. Htun presented her results.

Both Dr. Htun and Dr. Gul reported that they had no relationships relevant to their study.

SOURCE: Htun ZM, et al. CHEST 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.862.

More states are expanding their telehealth policies to reach patients, and pulling back on rigid in-person requirements.   

Several state Medicaid programs now explicitly allow the home to serve as an originating site for telehealth, with 10 states – Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – adding the home as an approved site since 2016.

In addition, 16 jurisdictions now allow schools to serve as originating sites for telehealth, although some have restrictions about when the sites are acceptable, said Mei Kwong, an attorney and executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy and the author of the center’s Spring 2018 report on telehealth trends.   

At the same time, nearly all states have now dropped Medicaid restrictions that limited reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Missouri are the most recent states to remove such geographic restrictions.

“[The expanded locations are] extremely helpful in providing greater access for patients to needed services,” Ms. Kwong said in an interview. “For example, a person who has difficulty leaving his or her home for a physical or other reason, they can get care, [or] a child having a rough time in school, can seek out a mental health counselor while at school.”
 

More telehealth providers

In addition to expanding teleheath sites, states are increasing acceptance for telehealth providers beyond physicians. Most recently, New Jersey enacted a broad telemedicine law that includes doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, counselors, respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and optometrists, among others. The New Jersey law addresses telemedicine practice standards, prescribing, patient consent, privacy, and other requirements for providers.

In addition, more states are carving out telehealth regulations. Since 2016, 11 states have revised or adopted new scope of practice restrictions for counselors providing telemedicine, according to a state telehealth analysis published in July 2018 by law firm Epstein, Becker, Green.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island recently imposed regulations for the practice of telepsychology. In addition, seven states have new or revised scope of practice restrictions for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) providing telehealth services, while eight states have new licensing requirements specific to telehealth practice by APRNs, according to the Epstein analysis.

A telehealth compact that would allow APRNs to practice nursing via telemedicine across state lines is also in the works. Similar to the physician Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the APRN Compact would establish an interstate commission and guidelines for uniform licensing requirements and criminal background checks. The compact will become effective when 10 states enact the compact legislation. So far, three states – Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho – have enacted the model legislation.

Another telemedicine compact for psychologists is getting ready to launch. In August, Illinois became the seventh state to join the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). The pact requires seven states to enact compact legislation to become effective, however Illinois law does not go into effect until 2020.

The developments highlight the rise in more mid- and lower-level providers practicing telemedicine, said Anjali B. Dooley, an attorney and chief legal and compliance officer for Forefront Telecare, a telehealth platform for behavioral health services. While the increase allows greater care access, the expansion also poses scope of practice challenges, she notes.

“Increasing scope of practice extensions also increases risk if physician extenders are not trained properly in telehealth technology use and protocols,” Ms. Dooley said in an interview. “Providers and provider extenders need to be educated and learned in human factors such as communication, empathy, and etiquette.”

A greater number of nonphysician telemedicine providers is beneficial as long as the providers are adhering to appropriate standards of care and consulting with supervising physicians when necessary, adds Jean R. Sumner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and a telemedicine internist.  

“The standard should always be equal to an in-person visit,” she said in an interview. “The patient has a right to know who is seeing them, too, to understand [their credentials]. They need to know the person on the telehealth unit is qualified to provide the care.”
 

Responding to the opioid crisis

The need for increased access to mental health care is a primary driver behind state efforts to expand the pool of telemedicine providers, adds Amy Lerman, an attorney at Epstein, Becker, Green and lead author of her firm’s report.

“The reason it is important for states to continue expanding the scope of health professionals, other than physicians, who can provide behavioral health telemedicine services, is not only to address an overall nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers, but also to expand access to behavioral health services because a wider range of providers are equipped to provide these services,” she said in an interview.

In the same vein, more states are using telehealth to address the opioid crisis, according to both the Epstein report and the Center for Connected Health Policy analysis.

In September, California enacted a law that would allow Medicaid reimbursement for certified substance use disorder counselors who provide treatment via telehealth. In August, Illinois approved a similar law that mandates reimbursement for behavioral and mental health experts who treat Medicaid patients through telehealth technologies.

The laws come after a June 2018 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that encouraged states to utilize health technology efforts to address the opioid crisis, including through telemedicine and telepsychiatry, said Daniel Kim, an attorney with Epstein, Becker, Green and a coauthor of his firm’s report.

At the same time, a number of states have expanded their controlled substance laws to allow remote prescribing through telehealth for the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders. Connecticut’s law, for instance, allows providers to prescribe Schedule I-III controlled substances through telehealth platforms, while banning opioid prescribing. In Indiana, 2017 legislation expanded the types of controlled medications that providers can prescribe through telehealth platforms, primarily drugs used to treat or manage opioid dependence. The states join an increasing number that have enacted laws allowing the remote prescribing of controlled substances, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The new laws will enhance the availability of behavioral health services, while allowing more treatment flexibility and privacy for patients, said Ms. Dooley.

“Treatment in one’s own environment where the addiction takes place is often more effective,” she said. People with addiction disorders “can also receive treatment without having to drive long distances.”
 

The disappearing in-person requirement

As states define their telehealth policies, they are fading out a once-prevalent requirement – the in-person visit. There is no longer a single state that requires physicians to meet with patients in-person before providing telemedicine services, according to the Epstein report.

States realized that requiring in-person visits before doctors can provide telemedicine creates a barrier to care, said Mr. Kim. A move to eliminate the requirement in Texas influenced other states in phasing out the common regulation. In the widely publicized Teladoc case, the national telemedicine company sued the Texas Medical Board in 2011 over its rule requiring Texas physicians to conduct a face-to-face evaluation before treating a patient via telemedicine. The legal battle continued for years, until Teladoc voluntarily dropped its lawsuit in 2017 after Texas adopted a new law that allowed doctors to treat first-time patients through telemedicine.

“The medical board [understood] that the in-person requirement wasn’t really a benefit to patients,” Mr. Kim said in an interview. “Once they changed it, a lot of other states have recognized the same and have moved toward getting rid of the requirement.”

In some states, midlevel providers still must see patients face-to-face before providing telehealth care. Arkansas for instance, requires that psychologists, counselors, and APRNs conduct an in-person exam before rendering telehealth. Professional boards in Colorado and Massachusetts recommend a face-to-face visit by midlevel providers as a best practice.
 

Reimbursement growing, but restrictions remain

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reimburse for some form of telehealth, mainly live video services. At least 20 states now pay providers for remote payment monitoring (RPM), according to the Center for Connected Health Policy report. The reimbursement is often restricted, however, to certain clinical conditions and/or rules that limit the type of monitoring device allowed. Colorado, for instance, only reimburses RPM for patients with congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or diabetes and requires that the patient was hospitalized at least twice in the last 12 months for reasons associated with one of the conditions. Missouri has similar RPM criteria associated with hospitalizations, but allows for a greater number of conditions including pregnancy, stroke, and cancer.

Most states have yet to pay for store-and-forward services, technologies that enable the electronic transfer of photos, prerecorded videos, or documents. Only about 14 states reimburse for such technology, and many policies include limitations. California, for example, only reimburses for store-and-forward services in teledermatology, teledentistry, and teleophthalmology. Connecticut allows for store-and-forward payment between physicians through email. Missouri allows for store-and-forward services in orthopedics, dermatology, optometry, ophthalmology, and in cases of retinopathy, burn and wound care, dental services, and maternal-fetal ultrasounds.

Reimbursement for telehealth is still a challenge for many physicians, Dr. Sumner said. Part of the problem is the wide discrepancy in how telehealth is defined among states, she said. Some states only consider live or interactive two-way technology as telehealth, excluding services such as store-and-forward and RPM. Other states reimburse for certain technology-based services, but they do not consider them telehealth. Maryland’s Medicaid program for example, does not reimburse for store and forward under its telehealth policy. However, store and forward used in dermatology, radiology, and ophthalmology is reimbursed by Maryland under an alternate billing code, though not considered telehealth.

Establishing best practices in telehealth through careful evaluation and research would improve reimbursement, said S. David McSwain, MD, interim chief medical information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and medical director for telehealth optimization.

“We can use that evidence to reduce the variation in telehealth payment policies across the states,” Dr. McSwain said in an interview. “By leveraging reimbursement models to promote best practices, we can encourage the spread of telehealth services that have the greatest impacts on patients, their families, and the health care system.”

More states are expanding their telehealth policies to reach patients, and pulling back on rigid in-person requirements.   

Several state Medicaid programs now explicitly allow the home to serve as an originating site for telehealth, with 10 states – Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – adding the home as an approved site since 2016.

In addition, 16 jurisdictions now allow schools to serve as originating sites for telehealth, although some have restrictions about when the sites are acceptable, said Mei Kwong, an attorney and executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy and the author of the center’s Spring 2018 report on telehealth trends.   

At the same time, nearly all states have now dropped Medicaid restrictions that limited reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Missouri are the most recent states to remove such geographic restrictions.

“[The expanded locations are] extremely helpful in providing greater access for patients to needed services,” Ms. Kwong said in an interview. “For example, a person who has difficulty leaving his or her home for a physical or other reason, they can get care, [or] a child having a rough time in school, can seek out a mental health counselor while at school.”
 

More telehealth providers

In addition to expanding teleheath sites, states are increasing acceptance for telehealth providers beyond physicians. Most recently, New Jersey enacted a broad telemedicine law that includes doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, counselors, respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and optometrists, among others. The New Jersey law addresses telemedicine practice standards, prescribing, patient consent, privacy, and other requirements for providers.

In addition, more states are carving out telehealth regulations. Since 2016, 11 states have revised or adopted new scope of practice restrictions for counselors providing telemedicine, according to a state telehealth analysis published in July 2018 by law firm Epstein, Becker, Green.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island recently imposed regulations for the practice of telepsychology. In addition, seven states have new or revised scope of practice restrictions for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) providing telehealth services, while eight states have new licensing requirements specific to telehealth practice by APRNs, according to the Epstein analysis.

A telehealth compact that would allow APRNs to practice nursing via telemedicine across state lines is also in the works. Similar to the physician Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the APRN Compact would establish an interstate commission and guidelines for uniform licensing requirements and criminal background checks. The compact will become effective when 10 states enact the compact legislation. So far, three states – Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho – have enacted the model legislation.

Another telemedicine compact for psychologists is getting ready to launch. In August, Illinois became the seventh state to join the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). The pact requires seven states to enact compact legislation to become effective, however Illinois law does not go into effect until 2020.

The developments highlight the rise in more mid- and lower-level providers practicing telemedicine, said Anjali B. Dooley, an attorney and chief legal and compliance officer for Forefront Telecare, a telehealth platform for behavioral health services. While the increase allows greater care access, the expansion also poses scope of practice challenges, she notes.

“Increasing scope of practice extensions also increases risk if physician extenders are not trained properly in telehealth technology use and protocols,” Ms. Dooley said in an interview. “Providers and provider extenders need to be educated and learned in human factors such as communication, empathy, and etiquette.”

A greater number of nonphysician telemedicine providers is beneficial as long as the providers are adhering to appropriate standards of care and consulting with supervising physicians when necessary, adds Jean R. Sumner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and a telemedicine internist.  

“The standard should always be equal to an in-person visit,” she said in an interview. “The patient has a right to know who is seeing them, too, to understand [their credentials]. They need to know the person on the telehealth unit is qualified to provide the care.”
 

Responding to the opioid crisis

The need for increased access to mental health care is a primary driver behind state efforts to expand the pool of telemedicine providers, adds Amy Lerman, an attorney at Epstein, Becker, Green and lead author of her firm’s report.

“The reason it is important for states to continue expanding the scope of health professionals, other than physicians, who can provide behavioral health telemedicine services, is not only to address an overall nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers, but also to expand access to behavioral health services because a wider range of providers are equipped to provide these services,” she said in an interview.

In the same vein, more states are using telehealth to address the opioid crisis, according to both the Epstein report and the Center for Connected Health Policy analysis.

In September, California enacted a law that would allow Medicaid reimbursement for certified substance use disorder counselors who provide treatment via telehealth. In August, Illinois approved a similar law that mandates reimbursement for behavioral and mental health experts who treat Medicaid patients through telehealth technologies.

The laws come after a June 2018 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that encouraged states to utilize health technology efforts to address the opioid crisis, including through telemedicine and telepsychiatry, said Daniel Kim, an attorney with Epstein, Becker, Green and a coauthor of his firm’s report.

At the same time, a number of states have expanded their controlled substance laws to allow remote prescribing through telehealth for the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders. Connecticut’s law, for instance, allows providers to prescribe Schedule I-III controlled substances through telehealth platforms, while banning opioid prescribing. In Indiana, 2017 legislation expanded the types of controlled medications that providers can prescribe through telehealth platforms, primarily drugs used to treat or manage opioid dependence. The states join an increasing number that have enacted laws allowing the remote prescribing of controlled substances, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The new laws will enhance the availability of behavioral health services, while allowing more treatment flexibility and privacy for patients, said Ms. Dooley.

“Treatment in one’s own environment where the addiction takes place is often more effective,” she said. People with addiction disorders “can also receive treatment without having to drive long distances.”
 

The disappearing in-person requirement

As states define their telehealth policies, they are fading out a once-prevalent requirement – the in-person visit. There is no longer a single state that requires physicians to meet with patients in-person before providing telemedicine services, according to the Epstein report.

States realized that requiring in-person visits before doctors can provide telemedicine creates a barrier to care, said Mr. Kim. A move to eliminate the requirement in Texas influenced other states in phasing out the common regulation. In the widely publicized Teladoc case, the national telemedicine company sued the Texas Medical Board in 2011 over its rule requiring Texas physicians to conduct a face-to-face evaluation before treating a patient via telemedicine. The legal battle continued for years, until Teladoc voluntarily dropped its lawsuit in 2017 after Texas adopted a new law that allowed doctors to treat first-time patients through telemedicine.

“The medical board [understood] that the in-person requirement wasn’t really a benefit to patients,” Mr. Kim said in an interview. “Once they changed it, a lot of other states have recognized the same and have moved toward getting rid of the requirement.”

In some states, midlevel providers still must see patients face-to-face before providing telehealth care. Arkansas for instance, requires that psychologists, counselors, and APRNs conduct an in-person exam before rendering telehealth. Professional boards in Colorado and Massachusetts recommend a face-to-face visit by midlevel providers as a best practice.
 

Reimbursement growing, but restrictions remain

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reimburse for some form of telehealth, mainly live video services. At least 20 states now pay providers for remote payment monitoring (RPM), according to the Center for Connected Health Policy report. The reimbursement is often restricted, however, to certain clinical conditions and/or rules that limit the type of monitoring device allowed. Colorado, for instance, only reimburses RPM for patients with congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or diabetes and requires that the patient was hospitalized at least twice in the last 12 months for reasons associated with one of the conditions. Missouri has similar RPM criteria associated with hospitalizations, but allows for a greater number of conditions including pregnancy, stroke, and cancer.

Most states have yet to pay for store-and-forward services, technologies that enable the electronic transfer of photos, prerecorded videos, or documents. Only about 14 states reimburse for such technology, and many policies include limitations. California, for example, only reimburses for store-and-forward services in teledermatology, teledentistry, and teleophthalmology. Connecticut allows for store-and-forward payment between physicians through email. Missouri allows for store-and-forward services in orthopedics, dermatology, optometry, ophthalmology, and in cases of retinopathy, burn and wound care, dental services, and maternal-fetal ultrasounds.

Reimbursement for telehealth is still a challenge for many physicians, Dr. Sumner said. Part of the problem is the wide discrepancy in how telehealth is defined among states, she said. Some states only consider live or interactive two-way technology as telehealth, excluding services such as store-and-forward and RPM. Other states reimburse for certain technology-based services, but they do not consider them telehealth. Maryland’s Medicaid program for example, does not reimburse for store and forward under its telehealth policy. However, store and forward used in dermatology, radiology, and ophthalmology is reimbursed by Maryland under an alternate billing code, though not considered telehealth.

Establishing best practices in telehealth through careful evaluation and research would improve reimbursement, said S. David McSwain, MD, interim chief medical information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and medical director for telehealth optimization.

“We can use that evidence to reduce the variation in telehealth payment policies across the states,” Dr. McSwain said in an interview. “By leveraging reimbursement models to promote best practices, we can encourage the spread of telehealth services that have the greatest impacts on patients, their families, and the health care system.”

More states are expanding their telehealth policies to reach patients, and pulling back on rigid in-person requirements.   

Several state Medicaid programs now explicitly allow the home to serve as an originating site for telehealth, with 10 states – Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming – adding the home as an approved site since 2016.

In addition, 16 jurisdictions now allow schools to serve as originating sites for telehealth, although some have restrictions about when the sites are acceptable, said Mei Kwong, an attorney and executive director for the Center for Connected Health Policy and the author of the center’s Spring 2018 report on telehealth trends.   

At the same time, nearly all states have now dropped Medicaid restrictions that limited reimbursable telehealth services to rural or underserved areas. Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Missouri are the most recent states to remove such geographic restrictions.

“[The expanded locations are] extremely helpful in providing greater access for patients to needed services,” Ms. Kwong said in an interview. “For example, a person who has difficulty leaving his or her home for a physical or other reason, they can get care, [or] a child having a rough time in school, can seek out a mental health counselor while at school.”
 

More telehealth providers

In addition to expanding teleheath sites, states are increasing acceptance for telehealth providers beyond physicians. Most recently, New Jersey enacted a broad telemedicine law that includes doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, physician assistants, counselors, respiratory therapists, speech pathologists, and optometrists, among others. The New Jersey law addresses telemedicine practice standards, prescribing, patient consent, privacy, and other requirements for providers.

In addition, more states are carving out telehealth regulations. Since 2016, 11 states have revised or adopted new scope of practice restrictions for counselors providing telemedicine, according to a state telehealth analysis published in July 2018 by law firm Epstein, Becker, Green.

Arkansas, Idaho, Maine, New Jersey, and Rhode Island recently imposed regulations for the practice of telepsychology. In addition, seven states have new or revised scope of practice restrictions for advanced practice registered nurses (APRN) providing telehealth services, while eight states have new licensing requirements specific to telehealth practice by APRNs, according to the Epstein analysis.

A telehealth compact that would allow APRNs to practice nursing via telemedicine across state lines is also in the works. Similar to the physician Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, the APRN Compact would establish an interstate commission and guidelines for uniform licensing requirements and criminal background checks. The compact will become effective when 10 states enact the compact legislation. So far, three states – Wyoming, North Dakota, and Idaho – have enacted the model legislation.

Another telemedicine compact for psychologists is getting ready to launch. In August, Illinois became the seventh state to join the Psychology Interjurisdictional Compact (PSYPACT). The pact requires seven states to enact compact legislation to become effective, however Illinois law does not go into effect until 2020.

The developments highlight the rise in more mid- and lower-level providers practicing telemedicine, said Anjali B. Dooley, an attorney and chief legal and compliance officer for Forefront Telecare, a telehealth platform for behavioral health services. While the increase allows greater care access, the expansion also poses scope of practice challenges, she notes.

“Increasing scope of practice extensions also increases risk if physician extenders are not trained properly in telehealth technology use and protocols,” Ms. Dooley said in an interview. “Providers and provider extenders need to be educated and learned in human factors such as communication, empathy, and etiquette.”

A greater number of nonphysician telemedicine providers is beneficial as long as the providers are adhering to appropriate standards of care and consulting with supervising physicians when necessary, adds Jean R. Sumner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, and a telemedicine internist.  

“The standard should always be equal to an in-person visit,” she said in an interview. “The patient has a right to know who is seeing them, too, to understand [their credentials]. They need to know the person on the telehealth unit is qualified to provide the care.”
 

Responding to the opioid crisis

The need for increased access to mental health care is a primary driver behind state efforts to expand the pool of telemedicine providers, adds Amy Lerman, an attorney at Epstein, Becker, Green and lead author of her firm’s report.

“The reason it is important for states to continue expanding the scope of health professionals, other than physicians, who can provide behavioral health telemedicine services, is not only to address an overall nationwide shortage of behavioral health providers, but also to expand access to behavioral health services because a wider range of providers are equipped to provide these services,” she said in an interview.

In the same vein, more states are using telehealth to address the opioid crisis, according to both the Epstein report and the Center for Connected Health Policy analysis.

In September, California enacted a law that would allow Medicaid reimbursement for certified substance use disorder counselors who provide treatment via telehealth. In August, Illinois approved a similar law that mandates reimbursement for behavioral and mental health experts who treat Medicaid patients through telehealth technologies.

The laws come after a June 2018 letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that encouraged states to utilize health technology efforts to address the opioid crisis, including through telemedicine and telepsychiatry, said Daniel Kim, an attorney with Epstein, Becker, Green and a coauthor of his firm’s report.

At the same time, a number of states have expanded their controlled substance laws to allow remote prescribing through telehealth for the treatment of psychiatric or substance use disorders. Connecticut’s law, for instance, allows providers to prescribe Schedule I-III controlled substances through telehealth platforms, while banning opioid prescribing. In Indiana, 2017 legislation expanded the types of controlled medications that providers can prescribe through telehealth platforms, primarily drugs used to treat or manage opioid dependence. The states join an increasing number that have enacted laws allowing the remote prescribing of controlled substances, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia.

The new laws will enhance the availability of behavioral health services, while allowing more treatment flexibility and privacy for patients, said Ms. Dooley.

“Treatment in one’s own environment where the addiction takes place is often more effective,” she said. People with addiction disorders “can also receive treatment without having to drive long distances.”
 

The disappearing in-person requirement

As states define their telehealth policies, they are fading out a once-prevalent requirement – the in-person visit. There is no longer a single state that requires physicians to meet with patients in-person before providing telemedicine services, according to the Epstein report.

States realized that requiring in-person visits before doctors can provide telemedicine creates a barrier to care, said Mr. Kim. A move to eliminate the requirement in Texas influenced other states in phasing out the common regulation. In the widely publicized Teladoc case, the national telemedicine company sued the Texas Medical Board in 2011 over its rule requiring Texas physicians to conduct a face-to-face evaluation before treating a patient via telemedicine. The legal battle continued for years, until Teladoc voluntarily dropped its lawsuit in 2017 after Texas adopted a new law that allowed doctors to treat first-time patients through telemedicine.

“The medical board [understood] that the in-person requirement wasn’t really a benefit to patients,” Mr. Kim said in an interview. “Once they changed it, a lot of other states have recognized the same and have moved toward getting rid of the requirement.”

In some states, midlevel providers still must see patients face-to-face before providing telehealth care. Arkansas for instance, requires that psychologists, counselors, and APRNs conduct an in-person exam before rendering telehealth. Professional boards in Colorado and Massachusetts recommend a face-to-face visit by midlevel providers as a best practice.
 

Reimbursement growing, but restrictions remain

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia reimburse for some form of telehealth, mainly live video services. At least 20 states now pay providers for remote payment monitoring (RPM), according to the Center for Connected Health Policy report. The reimbursement is often restricted, however, to certain clinical conditions and/or rules that limit the type of monitoring device allowed. Colorado, for instance, only reimburses RPM for patients with congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, or diabetes and requires that the patient was hospitalized at least twice in the last 12 months for reasons associated with one of the conditions. Missouri has similar RPM criteria associated with hospitalizations, but allows for a greater number of conditions including pregnancy, stroke, and cancer.

Most states have yet to pay for store-and-forward services, technologies that enable the electronic transfer of photos, prerecorded videos, or documents. Only about 14 states reimburse for such technology, and many policies include limitations. California, for example, only reimburses for store-and-forward services in teledermatology, teledentistry, and teleophthalmology. Connecticut allows for store-and-forward payment between physicians through email. Missouri allows for store-and-forward services in orthopedics, dermatology, optometry, ophthalmology, and in cases of retinopathy, burn and wound care, dental services, and maternal-fetal ultrasounds.

Reimbursement for telehealth is still a challenge for many physicians, Dr. Sumner said. Part of the problem is the wide discrepancy in how telehealth is defined among states, she said. Some states only consider live or interactive two-way technology as telehealth, excluding services such as store-and-forward and RPM. Other states reimburse for certain technology-based services, but they do not consider them telehealth. Maryland’s Medicaid program for example, does not reimburse for store and forward under its telehealth policy. However, store and forward used in dermatology, radiology, and ophthalmology is reimbursed by Maryland under an alternate billing code, though not considered telehealth.

Establishing best practices in telehealth through careful evaluation and research would improve reimbursement, said S. David McSwain, MD, interim chief medical information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and medical director for telehealth optimization.

“We can use that evidence to reduce the variation in telehealth payment policies across the states,” Dr. McSwain said in an interview. “By leveraging reimbursement models to promote best practices, we can encourage the spread of telehealth services that have the greatest impacts on patients, their families, and the health care system.”

Clinical question: Can a procalcitonin (PCT)–guided strategy safely reduce antibiotic exposure in patients admitted to the ICU with severe acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with or without pneumonia?

Background: Studies have demonstrated PCT-based strategies can safely reduce antibiotic use in patients without severe lower respiratory tract infections, community-acquired pneumonia, or acute exacerbations of COPD. The data on safety of PCT-based strategies in critically ill patients is limited.

Study design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: ICUs of 11 hospitals in France, including 7 tertiary care hospitals.

Synopsis: In this study 302 patients admitted to the ICU with severe exacerbations of COPD with or without pneumonia were randomly assigned to groups with antibiotic therapy guided by a PCT protocol or standard guidelines. Overall, the study failed to demonstrate noninferiority of a PCT-based strategy to reduce exposure to antibiotics. Specifically, the adjusted difference in mortality was 6.6% higher (90% confidence interval, 0.3%-13.5%) in the intervention group with no significant reduction in antibiotic exposure.

One limitation of this study was that it was an open trial in which clinicians were aware that their management was being observed.

Bottom line: A PCT-based algorithm was not effective in safely reducing antibiotic exposure in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ICU.

Citation: Daubin C et al. Procalcitonin algorithm to guide initial antibiotic therapy in acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ICU: A randomized multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Apr;44(4):428-37.

Dr. Agith is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Clinical question: Can a procalcitonin (PCT)–guided strategy safely reduce antibiotic exposure in patients admitted to the ICU with severe acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with or without pneumonia?

Background: Studies have demonstrated PCT-based strategies can safely reduce antibiotic use in patients without severe lower respiratory tract infections, community-acquired pneumonia, or acute exacerbations of COPD. The data on safety of PCT-based strategies in critically ill patients is limited.

Study design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: ICUs of 11 hospitals in France, including 7 tertiary care hospitals.

Synopsis: In this study 302 patients admitted to the ICU with severe exacerbations of COPD with or without pneumonia were randomly assigned to groups with antibiotic therapy guided by a PCT protocol or standard guidelines. Overall, the study failed to demonstrate noninferiority of a PCT-based strategy to reduce exposure to antibiotics. Specifically, the adjusted difference in mortality was 6.6% higher (90% confidence interval, 0.3%-13.5%) in the intervention group with no significant reduction in antibiotic exposure.

One limitation of this study was that it was an open trial in which clinicians were aware that their management was being observed.

Bottom line: A PCT-based algorithm was not effective in safely reducing antibiotic exposure in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ICU.

Citation: Daubin C et al. Procalcitonin algorithm to guide initial antibiotic therapy in acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ICU: A randomized multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Apr;44(4):428-37.

Dr. Agith is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Clinical question: Can a procalcitonin (PCT)–guided strategy safely reduce antibiotic exposure in patients admitted to the ICU with severe acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with or without pneumonia?

Background: Studies have demonstrated PCT-based strategies can safely reduce antibiotic use in patients without severe lower respiratory tract infections, community-acquired pneumonia, or acute exacerbations of COPD. The data on safety of PCT-based strategies in critically ill patients is limited.

Study design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: ICUs of 11 hospitals in France, including 7 tertiary care hospitals.

Synopsis: In this study 302 patients admitted to the ICU with severe exacerbations of COPD with or without pneumonia were randomly assigned to groups with antibiotic therapy guided by a PCT protocol or standard guidelines. Overall, the study failed to demonstrate noninferiority of a PCT-based strategy to reduce exposure to antibiotics. Specifically, the adjusted difference in mortality was 6.6% higher (90% confidence interval, 0.3%-13.5%) in the intervention group with no significant reduction in antibiotic exposure.

One limitation of this study was that it was an open trial in which clinicians were aware that their management was being observed.

Bottom line: A PCT-based algorithm was not effective in safely reducing antibiotic exposure in patients with acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ICU.

Citation: Daubin C et al. Procalcitonin algorithm to guide initial antibiotic therapy in acute exacerbations of COPD admitted to the ICU: A randomized multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Apr;44(4):428-37.

Dr. Agith is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved omadacycline (Nuzyra), a tetracycline antibiotic, for treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in adults, the manufacturer, Paratek, announced in a press release.

The company expects that omadacycline will be available in the first quarter of 2019. Administered once-daily in either oral or IV formulations, the antibiotic was effective and well tolerated across multiple trials, which altogether included almost 2,000 patients, according to Paratek. As part of the approval, the company has agreed to conduct postmarketing studies, specifically, more studies in CABP and in pediatric populations. “To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of Nuzyra and other antibacterial drugs, Nuzyra should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by susceptible bacteria,” according to a statement in the indications section of the prescribing information.

Omadacycline is contraindicated for patients with a known hypersensitivity to the drug or any members of the tetracycline class of antibacterial drugs; hypersensitivity reactions have been observed, so use should be discontinued if one is suspected. Use of this drug during later stages of pregnancy can lead to irreversible discoloration of the infant’s teeth and inhibition of bone growth; it should also not be used during breastfeeding.

Because omadacycline is structurally similar to tetracycline class drugs, some adverse reactions to those drugs may be seen with this one, such as photosensitivity, pseudotumor cerebri, and antianabolic action. Adverse reactions known to have an association with omadacycline include nausea, vomiting, hypertension, insomnia, diarrhea, constipation, and increases of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and/or gamma-glutamyl transferase.

Drug interactions may occur with anticoagulants, so dosage of those drugs may need to be reduced while treating with omadacycline. Antacids also are believed to have a drug interaction – specifically, impairing absorption of omadacycline

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved omadacycline (Nuzyra), a tetracycline antibiotic, for treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in adults, the manufacturer, Paratek, announced in a press release.

The company expects that omadacycline will be available in the first quarter of 2019. Administered once-daily in either oral or IV formulations, the antibiotic was effective and well tolerated across multiple trials, which altogether included almost 2,000 patients, according to Paratek. As part of the approval, the company has agreed to conduct postmarketing studies, specifically, more studies in CABP and in pediatric populations. “To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of Nuzyra and other antibacterial drugs, Nuzyra should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by susceptible bacteria,” according to a statement in the indications section of the prescribing information.

Omadacycline is contraindicated for patients with a known hypersensitivity to the drug or any members of the tetracycline class of antibacterial drugs; hypersensitivity reactions have been observed, so use should be discontinued if one is suspected. Use of this drug during later stages of pregnancy can lead to irreversible discoloration of the infant’s teeth and inhibition of bone growth; it should also not be used during breastfeeding.

Because omadacycline is structurally similar to tetracycline class drugs, some adverse reactions to those drugs may be seen with this one, such as photosensitivity, pseudotumor cerebri, and antianabolic action. Adverse reactions known to have an association with omadacycline include nausea, vomiting, hypertension, insomnia, diarrhea, constipation, and increases of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and/or gamma-glutamyl transferase.

Drug interactions may occur with anticoagulants, so dosage of those drugs may need to be reduced while treating with omadacycline. Antacids also are believed to have a drug interaction – specifically, impairing absorption of omadacycline

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved omadacycline (Nuzyra), a tetracycline antibiotic, for treating community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in adults, the manufacturer, Paratek, announced in a press release.

The company expects that omadacycline will be available in the first quarter of 2019. Administered once-daily in either oral or IV formulations, the antibiotic was effective and well tolerated across multiple trials, which altogether included almost 2,000 patients, according to Paratek. As part of the approval, the company has agreed to conduct postmarketing studies, specifically, more studies in CABP and in pediatric populations. “To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of Nuzyra and other antibacterial drugs, Nuzyra should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by susceptible bacteria,” according to a statement in the indications section of the prescribing information.

Omadacycline is contraindicated for patients with a known hypersensitivity to the drug or any members of the tetracycline class of antibacterial drugs; hypersensitivity reactions have been observed, so use should be discontinued if one is suspected. Use of this drug during later stages of pregnancy can lead to irreversible discoloration of the infant’s teeth and inhibition of bone growth; it should also not be used during breastfeeding.

Because omadacycline is structurally similar to tetracycline class drugs, some adverse reactions to those drugs may be seen with this one, such as photosensitivity, pseudotumor cerebri, and antianabolic action. Adverse reactions known to have an association with omadacycline include nausea, vomiting, hypertension, insomnia, diarrhea, constipation, and increases of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and/or gamma-glutamyl transferase.

Drug interactions may occur with anticoagulants, so dosage of those drugs may need to be reduced while treating with omadacycline. Antacids also are believed to have a drug interaction – specifically, impairing absorption of omadacycline

[email protected]

Clinical question: Do preoperative hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and perioperative glucose predict outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac and cardiac surgeries?

Background: Hyperglycemia in the perioperative period has been associated with infection, delayed wound healing, and postoperative mortality. Studies have investigated the effects of HbA_1c or hyperglycemia on postoperative outcomes, but none have been performed to assess the effect of one while controlling for the other.

Study design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Single-center, Duke University Health System.

Synopsis: Using a database of electronic health records at Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., investigators reviewed 13,077 surgeries (6,684 noncardiac and 6,393 cardiac) to determine the association of preoperative HbA_1c with perioperative glucose and 30-day mortality. For noncardiac surgery, increased average perioperative glucose was associated with increased mortality (P = .04). In cardiac surgery both low and high average glucose was associated with increased mortality (P = .001). By contrast, HbA_1c was not a significant predictor of postoperative mortality in cardiac surgery (P = .08), and in noncardiac surgery, HbA_1C was negatively associated with 30-day mortality (P = .01). Overall, perioperative glucose was predictive of 30-day mortality, but HbA_1c was not associated with 30-day mortality after researchers controlled for glucose.

Because the study is retrospective, no causal relationship can be established. Hospitalists involved in perioperative care should aim for optimization of glucose control regardless of preoperative HbA_1c.

Bottom line: Perioperative glucose is related to surgical outcomes, but HbA_1c is a less useful indicator of 30-day postoperative mortality.

Citation: Van den Boom W et al. Effect of A1C and glucose on postoperative mortality in noncardiac and cardiac surgeries. Diabetes Care. 2018 Feb;41:782-8.

Clinical question: Do preoperative hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and perioperative glucose predict outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac and cardiac surgeries?

Background: Hyperglycemia in the perioperative period has been associated with infection, delayed wound healing, and postoperative mortality. Studies have investigated the effects of HbA_1c or hyperglycemia on postoperative outcomes, but none have been performed to assess the effect of one while controlling for the other.

Study design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Single-center, Duke University Health System.

Synopsis: Using a database of electronic health records at Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., investigators reviewed 13,077 surgeries (6,684 noncardiac and 6,393 cardiac) to determine the association of preoperative HbA_1c with perioperative glucose and 30-day mortality. For noncardiac surgery, increased average perioperative glucose was associated with increased mortality (P = .04). In cardiac surgery both low and high average glucose was associated with increased mortality (P = .001). By contrast, HbA_1c was not a significant predictor of postoperative mortality in cardiac surgery (P = .08), and in noncardiac surgery, HbA_1C was negatively associated with 30-day mortality (P = .01). Overall, perioperative glucose was predictive of 30-day mortality, but HbA_1c was not associated with 30-day mortality after researchers controlled for glucose.

Because the study is retrospective, no causal relationship can be established. Hospitalists involved in perioperative care should aim for optimization of glucose control regardless of preoperative HbA_1c.

Bottom line: Perioperative glucose is related to surgical outcomes, but HbA_1c is a less useful indicator of 30-day postoperative mortality.

Citation: Van den Boom W et al. Effect of A1C and glucose on postoperative mortality in noncardiac and cardiac surgeries. Diabetes Care. 2018 Feb;41:782-8.

Clinical question: Do preoperative hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and perioperative glucose predict outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac and cardiac surgeries?

Background: Hyperglycemia in the perioperative period has been associated with infection, delayed wound healing, and postoperative mortality. Studies have investigated the effects of HbA_1c or hyperglycemia on postoperative outcomes, but none have been performed to assess the effect of one while controlling for the other.

Study design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Single-center, Duke University Health System.

Synopsis: Using a database of electronic health records at Duke University Health System, Durham, N.C., investigators reviewed 13,077 surgeries (6,684 noncardiac and 6,393 cardiac) to determine the association of preoperative HbA_1c with perioperative glucose and 30-day mortality. For noncardiac surgery, increased average perioperative glucose was associated with increased mortality (P = .04). In cardiac surgery both low and high average glucose was associated with increased mortality (P = .001). By contrast, HbA_1c was not a significant predictor of postoperative mortality in cardiac surgery (P = .08), and in noncardiac surgery, HbA_1C was negatively associated with 30-day mortality (P = .01). Overall, perioperative glucose was predictive of 30-day mortality, but HbA_1c was not associated with 30-day mortality after researchers controlled for glucose.

Because the study is retrospective, no causal relationship can be established. Hospitalists involved in perioperative care should aim for optimization of glucose control regardless of preoperative HbA_1c.

Bottom line: Perioperative glucose is related to surgical outcomes, but HbA_1c is a less useful indicator of 30-day postoperative mortality.

Citation: Van den Boom W et al. Effect of A1C and glucose on postoperative mortality in noncardiac and cardiac surgeries. Diabetes Care. 2018 Feb;41:782-8.