All Content

Anticoagulation thresholds based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score varied from population to population, researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

After accounting for differing rates of stroke in published studies, the benefit of warfarin anticoagulation varied nearly fourfold, said Sachin J. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco and his associates. They called for guidelines that “better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation.”

Oral anticoagulation markedly reduces risk of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, which often is fatal. Therefore, when deciding whether to recommend oral anticoagulation, physicians must estimate clinical net benefit by quantifying the difference between reduction in stroke risk and increase in major bleeding risk, weighted by the severity of each outcome.

Guidelines on nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from the European Society of Cardiology and joint guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) recommend oral anticoagulation when CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) risk score is 2 or greater. These guidelines implicitly assume that a particular CHA₂DS₂-VASc score denotes the same amount of risk across populations, even though a recent meta-analysis found otherwise, as the researchers noted.

To further test this assumption, they applied an existing Markov model to data from more than 33,000 members of the ATRIA-CVRN cohort. All patients had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and were diagnosed during 1996-1997. About 81% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2. For each patient, the researchers produced four estimates of the net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation based on ischemic stroke rates from ATRIA, the Swedish AF cohort study, the SPORTIF study, and the Danish National Patient Registry.

Optimal anticoagulation thresholds were a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more based on Swedish AF rates, 1 or more based on SPORTIF rates, and 0 or more using rates from the Danish National Patient Registry. Oral anticoagulation thresholds were lower but still varied widely after accounting for the lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage associated with non–vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Therefore, current guidelines based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may need revising “in favor of more accurate, individualized assessments of risk for both ischemic stroke and major bleeding,” the investigators wrote. “Until such time, guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty of the current approach in which a patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is used as the primary basis for recommending oral anticoagulation.”

The study had no primary funding source. Dr. Shah reported having no conflicts of interest. Three coinvestigators disclosed research support from relevant pharmaceutical or device companies.

SOURCE: Shah SJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.7326/M17-2762  

Anticoagulation thresholds based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score varied from population to population, researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

After accounting for differing rates of stroke in published studies, the benefit of warfarin anticoagulation varied nearly fourfold, said Sachin J. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco and his associates. They called for guidelines that “better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation.”

Oral anticoagulation markedly reduces risk of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, which often is fatal. Therefore, when deciding whether to recommend oral anticoagulation, physicians must estimate clinical net benefit by quantifying the difference between reduction in stroke risk and increase in major bleeding risk, weighted by the severity of each outcome.

Guidelines on nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from the European Society of Cardiology and joint guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) recommend oral anticoagulation when CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) risk score is 2 or greater. These guidelines implicitly assume that a particular CHA₂DS₂-VASc score denotes the same amount of risk across populations, even though a recent meta-analysis found otherwise, as the researchers noted.

To further test this assumption, they applied an existing Markov model to data from more than 33,000 members of the ATRIA-CVRN cohort. All patients had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and were diagnosed during 1996-1997. About 81% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2. For each patient, the researchers produced four estimates of the net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation based on ischemic stroke rates from ATRIA, the Swedish AF cohort study, the SPORTIF study, and the Danish National Patient Registry.

Optimal anticoagulation thresholds were a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more based on Swedish AF rates, 1 or more based on SPORTIF rates, and 0 or more using rates from the Danish National Patient Registry. Oral anticoagulation thresholds were lower but still varied widely after accounting for the lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage associated with non–vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Therefore, current guidelines based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may need revising “in favor of more accurate, individualized assessments of risk for both ischemic stroke and major bleeding,” the investigators wrote. “Until such time, guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty of the current approach in which a patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is used as the primary basis for recommending oral anticoagulation.”

The study had no primary funding source. Dr. Shah reported having no conflicts of interest. Three coinvestigators disclosed research support from relevant pharmaceutical or device companies.

SOURCE: Shah SJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.7326/M17-2762  

Anticoagulation thresholds based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk score varied from population to population, researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

After accounting for differing rates of stroke in published studies, the benefit of warfarin anticoagulation varied nearly fourfold, said Sachin J. Shah, MD, of the University of California San Francisco and his associates. They called for guidelines that “better reflect the uncertainty in current thresholds of stroke risk score for recommending anticoagulation.”

Oral anticoagulation markedly reduces risk of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, which often is fatal. Therefore, when deciding whether to recommend oral anticoagulation, physicians must estimate clinical net benefit by quantifying the difference between reduction in stroke risk and increase in major bleeding risk, weighted by the severity of each outcome.

Guidelines on nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from the European Society of Cardiology and joint guidelines from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) recommend oral anticoagulation when CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, and vascular disease) risk score is 2 or greater. These guidelines implicitly assume that a particular CHA₂DS₂-VASc score denotes the same amount of risk across populations, even though a recent meta-analysis found otherwise, as the researchers noted.

To further test this assumption, they applied an existing Markov model to data from more than 33,000 members of the ATRIA-CVRN cohort. All patients had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and were diagnosed during 1996-1997. About 81% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of at least 2. For each patient, the researchers produced four estimates of the net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation based on ischemic stroke rates from ATRIA, the Swedish AF cohort study, the SPORTIF study, and the Danish National Patient Registry.

Optimal anticoagulation thresholds were a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score of 3 or more using stroke rates from ATRIA, 2 or more based on Swedish AF rates, 1 or more based on SPORTIF rates, and 0 or more using rates from the Danish National Patient Registry. Oral anticoagulation thresholds were lower but still varied widely after accounting for the lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage associated with non–vitamin K antagonist therapy.

Therefore, current guidelines based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score may need revising “in favor of more accurate, individualized assessments of risk for both ischemic stroke and major bleeding,” the investigators wrote. “Until such time, guidelines should better reflect the uncertainty of the current approach in which a patient’s CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is used as the primary basis for recommending oral anticoagulation.”

The study had no primary funding source. Dr. Shah reported having no conflicts of interest. Three coinvestigators disclosed research support from relevant pharmaceutical or device companies.

SOURCE: Shah SJ et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.7326/M17-2762  

For the last 8 years I have worked as a locum tenens hospitalist. I began on this path when it was the least popular option upon graduation from residency.

I did countless hours of research trying to find accurate information about locum tenens companies, but never found anything written by physicians, only by the companies themselves. So, I stepped into this field blindfolded and learned the hard way. Since than, I have worked with over 16 locum tenens companies, 14 hospitals, and eight electronic medical record systems.

Through these experiences I’ve realized that, unfortunately, some locum tenens companies do not act with the professionalism and efficiency that both physicians and hospital systems would expect. This can lead to more stress than an actual employed position for physicians, and poor coverage with enormous costs for hospitals.

I decided to take matters into my own hands because I wanted to make the locum tenens system easier to navigate. I believe that the system can play a role in decreasing physician burnout, and I deeply understand the need that hospitals have to serve their patients with a shortage of doctors. As locum tenens physicians, we serve a need and shouldn’t have to deal with inefficient placement systems.

Here are five mistakes to avoid for physicians that are first entering into the locum tenens world:

1. Beware choosing a “factory mill” locum tenens company. Bigger companies have higher overhead, which usually means that they take more of a margin from physicians. Generally speaking, larger locum tenens companies pay their recruiters a lower percentage commission, so each recruiter has more physicians. This can lead to mistakes which can cause stress for both physicians and hospitals.

2. Beware long travel. Hourly rates that are $5-$10 dollars more per hour in remote locations are attractive. However, the amount of travel needed to get to these locations may not be worth it. When negotiating a rate, make sure not to lose sight of the amount of time it will take to travel to the hospital or outpatient location.

3. Beware short-term placements. There are a lot of hospitals that just need one or two weeks covered. Even if it’s at a much higher rate, the amount of paper work and credentialing hassle may not be worth the amount of time you work there. The greater number of cumulative hospitals worked, the longer credentialing will take in future locum tenens placements.

4. Beware using multiple travel services. Stick to one airline, one rental car company, and one hotel chain. This way when you are not working, you may be able to use the points earned during your work days for future vacations.

5. Beware companies that are not organized. If you find that a locum tenens company is asking you to do all of the paperwork to get credentialed, move on. This can be a red flag and may mean they lack credentialing staff. You should never have to fill out your own paperwork; rather you should be the one that simply reviews and corrects it.

Dr. Arora works as a liaison between hospitals, physicians, and locum tenens companies and is a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. She negotiates rates and expectations with multiple locum tenens companies on behalf of physicians in all fields of practice and does not own or endorse a locum tenens company. You can contact her at www.doctorsliaison.com.

For the last 8 years I have worked as a locum tenens hospitalist. I began on this path when it was the least popular option upon graduation from residency.

I did countless hours of research trying to find accurate information about locum tenens companies, but never found anything written by physicians, only by the companies themselves. So, I stepped into this field blindfolded and learned the hard way. Since than, I have worked with over 16 locum tenens companies, 14 hospitals, and eight electronic medical record systems.

Through these experiences I’ve realized that, unfortunately, some locum tenens companies do not act with the professionalism and efficiency that both physicians and hospital systems would expect. This can lead to more stress than an actual employed position for physicians, and poor coverage with enormous costs for hospitals.

I decided to take matters into my own hands because I wanted to make the locum tenens system easier to navigate. I believe that the system can play a role in decreasing physician burnout, and I deeply understand the need that hospitals have to serve their patients with a shortage of doctors. As locum tenens physicians, we serve a need and shouldn’t have to deal with inefficient placement systems.

Here are five mistakes to avoid for physicians that are first entering into the locum tenens world:

1. Beware choosing a “factory mill” locum tenens company. Bigger companies have higher overhead, which usually means that they take more of a margin from physicians. Generally speaking, larger locum tenens companies pay their recruiters a lower percentage commission, so each recruiter has more physicians. This can lead to mistakes which can cause stress for both physicians and hospitals.

2. Beware long travel. Hourly rates that are $5-$10 dollars more per hour in remote locations are attractive. However, the amount of travel needed to get to these locations may not be worth it. When negotiating a rate, make sure not to lose sight of the amount of time it will take to travel to the hospital or outpatient location.

3. Beware short-term placements. There are a lot of hospitals that just need one or two weeks covered. Even if it’s at a much higher rate, the amount of paper work and credentialing hassle may not be worth the amount of time you work there. The greater number of cumulative hospitals worked, the longer credentialing will take in future locum tenens placements.

4. Beware using multiple travel services. Stick to one airline, one rental car company, and one hotel chain. This way when you are not working, you may be able to use the points earned during your work days for future vacations.

5. Beware companies that are not organized. If you find that a locum tenens company is asking you to do all of the paperwork to get credentialed, move on. This can be a red flag and may mean they lack credentialing staff. You should never have to fill out your own paperwork; rather you should be the one that simply reviews and corrects it.

Dr. Arora works as a liaison between hospitals, physicians, and locum tenens companies and is a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. She negotiates rates and expectations with multiple locum tenens companies on behalf of physicians in all fields of practice and does not own or endorse a locum tenens company. You can contact her at www.doctorsliaison.com.

For the last 8 years I have worked as a locum tenens hospitalist. I began on this path when it was the least popular option upon graduation from residency.

I did countless hours of research trying to find accurate information about locum tenens companies, but never found anything written by physicians, only by the companies themselves. So, I stepped into this field blindfolded and learned the hard way. Since than, I have worked with over 16 locum tenens companies, 14 hospitals, and eight electronic medical record systems.

Through these experiences I’ve realized that, unfortunately, some locum tenens companies do not act with the professionalism and efficiency that both physicians and hospital systems would expect. This can lead to more stress than an actual employed position for physicians, and poor coverage with enormous costs for hospitals.

I decided to take matters into my own hands because I wanted to make the locum tenens system easier to navigate. I believe that the system can play a role in decreasing physician burnout, and I deeply understand the need that hospitals have to serve their patients with a shortage of doctors. As locum tenens physicians, we serve a need and shouldn’t have to deal with inefficient placement systems.

Here are five mistakes to avoid for physicians that are first entering into the locum tenens world:

1. Beware choosing a “factory mill” locum tenens company. Bigger companies have higher overhead, which usually means that they take more of a margin from physicians. Generally speaking, larger locum tenens companies pay their recruiters a lower percentage commission, so each recruiter has more physicians. This can lead to mistakes which can cause stress for both physicians and hospitals.

2. Beware long travel. Hourly rates that are $5-$10 dollars more per hour in remote locations are attractive. However, the amount of travel needed to get to these locations may not be worth it. When negotiating a rate, make sure not to lose sight of the amount of time it will take to travel to the hospital or outpatient location.

3. Beware short-term placements. There are a lot of hospitals that just need one or two weeks covered. Even if it’s at a much higher rate, the amount of paper work and credentialing hassle may not be worth the amount of time you work there. The greater number of cumulative hospitals worked, the longer credentialing will take in future locum tenens placements.

4. Beware using multiple travel services. Stick to one airline, one rental car company, and one hotel chain. This way when you are not working, you may be able to use the points earned during your work days for future vacations.

5. Beware companies that are not organized. If you find that a locum tenens company is asking you to do all of the paperwork to get credentialed, move on. This can be a red flag and may mean they lack credentialing staff. You should never have to fill out your own paperwork; rather you should be the one that simply reviews and corrects it.

Dr. Arora works as a liaison between hospitals, physicians, and locum tenens companies and is a member of The Hospitalist’s editorial advisory board. She negotiates rates and expectations with multiple locum tenens companies on behalf of physicians in all fields of practice and does not own or endorse a locum tenens company. You can contact her at www.doctorsliaison.com.

Longer-term outcomes of treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis with antibiotics suggest it is a feasible alternative to appendectomy.

copyright decade3d/Thinkstock

Researchers have presented the 5-year follow-up data from the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing appendectomy with antibiotic therapy in 530 patients.

They found that 39.1% (100) of the 257 patients randomized to antibiotic therapy – 3 days of intravenous ertapenem followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin and metronidazole – experienced a recurrence of appendicitis within 5 years and subsequently had surgery.

However the authors noted that seven of these patients were later found not to have appendicitis, so the true success rate for antibiotic treatment was actually 63.7%.

Seventy of the patients who experienced a recurrence underwent surgery in the first year after randomization, 17 in the second year, 3 in the third year, 5 in the fourth year, and the remaining 5 patients in the fifth year, the authors wrote in an article published in JAMA.

However the overall complication rate was similar in patients who were randomized to undergo appendectomy and in those who were initially randomized to the antibiotic group but later experienced a recurrence and underwent surgery.

“No patient initially treated with antibiotics, who ultimately developed recurrent appendicitis, had any complications related to the delay in surgery,” wrote Paulina Salminen, MD, from Turku (Finland) University Hospital and coauthors. “Nearly two-thirds of all patients who initially presented with uncomplicated appendicitis were successfully treated with antibiotics alone, and those who ultimately developed recurrent disease did not experience any adverse outcomes related to the delay in appendectomy.”

Of the 100 patients randomized to antibiotics who underwent appendectomy after a recurrence, 15 were operated on when they were first hospitalized at study admission.

The authors commented that the study design allowed for surgeons to exercise their clinical judgment in choosing when to perform an appendectomy on patients in the antibiotic group, because antibiotics alone was not considered acceptable treatment for appendicitis.

“This led to some patients undergoing appendectomy who did not have appendicitis or who might have been successfully treated with antibiotics or an another course of antibiotics,” they wrote. “Future studies should investigate protocols for further imaging or antibiotic treatment for patients who develop recurrent appendicitis after they were initially treated with antibiotics.”

In the recurrence group, the majority were found to have uncomplicated appendicitis, but complicated appendicitis was seen in two patients between 2 and 5 years after the index admission.

There was a significant 17.9% higher complication rate in the appendectomy group, compared with the antibiotic group – 24.4% versus 6.5% – at 5 years and two patients in the appendectomy group had severe complications requiring reoperation.

They suggested that the higher complication rate with surgery, which was mostly attributable to infections, could be reduced by the use of laparoscopic appendectomy, which is also associated with faster recovery.

The median length of hospital stay was 3 days for both the appendectomy group and the antibiotics-only group, but patients randomized to appendectomy took a median of 22 days of sick leave, compared with 11 days for those randomized to antibiotics (P less than .001).

In the absence of standard protocol on treating appendicitis with antibiotics, the authors noted that they took a conservative approach, using broad-spectrum antibiotics and keeping patients in hospital for 3 days for observation.

“The success of antibiotic treatment for appendicitis calls into question prior beliefs that appendicitis inevitably results in serious intra-abdominal infection if appendectomy is not performed.”

The study was supported by the Mary and Georg C. Ehrnrooth Foundation, the EVO Foundation, and Turku University. One author declared lecture fees from three pharmaceutical companies but no other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Salminen P et al. JAMA 2018;320:1259-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13201.

Longer-term outcomes of treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis with antibiotics suggest it is a feasible alternative to appendectomy.

copyright decade3d/Thinkstock

Researchers have presented the 5-year follow-up data from the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing appendectomy with antibiotic therapy in 530 patients.

They found that 39.1% (100) of the 257 patients randomized to antibiotic therapy – 3 days of intravenous ertapenem followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin and metronidazole – experienced a recurrence of appendicitis within 5 years and subsequently had surgery.

However the authors noted that seven of these patients were later found not to have appendicitis, so the true success rate for antibiotic treatment was actually 63.7%.

Seventy of the patients who experienced a recurrence underwent surgery in the first year after randomization, 17 in the second year, 3 in the third year, 5 in the fourth year, and the remaining 5 patients in the fifth year, the authors wrote in an article published in JAMA.

However the overall complication rate was similar in patients who were randomized to undergo appendectomy and in those who were initially randomized to the antibiotic group but later experienced a recurrence and underwent surgery.

“No patient initially treated with antibiotics, who ultimately developed recurrent appendicitis, had any complications related to the delay in surgery,” wrote Paulina Salminen, MD, from Turku (Finland) University Hospital and coauthors. “Nearly two-thirds of all patients who initially presented with uncomplicated appendicitis were successfully treated with antibiotics alone, and those who ultimately developed recurrent disease did not experience any adverse outcomes related to the delay in appendectomy.”

Of the 100 patients randomized to antibiotics who underwent appendectomy after a recurrence, 15 were operated on when they were first hospitalized at study admission.

The authors commented that the study design allowed for surgeons to exercise their clinical judgment in choosing when to perform an appendectomy on patients in the antibiotic group, because antibiotics alone was not considered acceptable treatment for appendicitis.

“This led to some patients undergoing appendectomy who did not have appendicitis or who might have been successfully treated with antibiotics or an another course of antibiotics,” they wrote. “Future studies should investigate protocols for further imaging or antibiotic treatment for patients who develop recurrent appendicitis after they were initially treated with antibiotics.”

In the recurrence group, the majority were found to have uncomplicated appendicitis, but complicated appendicitis was seen in two patients between 2 and 5 years after the index admission.

There was a significant 17.9% higher complication rate in the appendectomy group, compared with the antibiotic group – 24.4% versus 6.5% – at 5 years and two patients in the appendectomy group had severe complications requiring reoperation.

They suggested that the higher complication rate with surgery, which was mostly attributable to infections, could be reduced by the use of laparoscopic appendectomy, which is also associated with faster recovery.

The median length of hospital stay was 3 days for both the appendectomy group and the antibiotics-only group, but patients randomized to appendectomy took a median of 22 days of sick leave, compared with 11 days for those randomized to antibiotics (P less than .001).

In the absence of standard protocol on treating appendicitis with antibiotics, the authors noted that they took a conservative approach, using broad-spectrum antibiotics and keeping patients in hospital for 3 days for observation.

“The success of antibiotic treatment for appendicitis calls into question prior beliefs that appendicitis inevitably results in serious intra-abdominal infection if appendectomy is not performed.”

The study was supported by the Mary and Georg C. Ehrnrooth Foundation, the EVO Foundation, and Turku University. One author declared lecture fees from three pharmaceutical companies but no other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Salminen P et al. JAMA 2018;320:1259-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13201.

Longer-term outcomes of treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis with antibiotics suggest it is a feasible alternative to appendectomy.

copyright decade3d/Thinkstock

Researchers have presented the 5-year follow-up data from the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing appendectomy with antibiotic therapy in 530 patients.

They found that 39.1% (100) of the 257 patients randomized to antibiotic therapy – 3 days of intravenous ertapenem followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin and metronidazole – experienced a recurrence of appendicitis within 5 years and subsequently had surgery.

However the authors noted that seven of these patients were later found not to have appendicitis, so the true success rate for antibiotic treatment was actually 63.7%.

Seventy of the patients who experienced a recurrence underwent surgery in the first year after randomization, 17 in the second year, 3 in the third year, 5 in the fourth year, and the remaining 5 patients in the fifth year, the authors wrote in an article published in JAMA.

However the overall complication rate was similar in patients who were randomized to undergo appendectomy and in those who were initially randomized to the antibiotic group but later experienced a recurrence and underwent surgery.

“No patient initially treated with antibiotics, who ultimately developed recurrent appendicitis, had any complications related to the delay in surgery,” wrote Paulina Salminen, MD, from Turku (Finland) University Hospital and coauthors. “Nearly two-thirds of all patients who initially presented with uncomplicated appendicitis were successfully treated with antibiotics alone, and those who ultimately developed recurrent disease did not experience any adverse outcomes related to the delay in appendectomy.”

Of the 100 patients randomized to antibiotics who underwent appendectomy after a recurrence, 15 were operated on when they were first hospitalized at study admission.

The authors commented that the study design allowed for surgeons to exercise their clinical judgment in choosing when to perform an appendectomy on patients in the antibiotic group, because antibiotics alone was not considered acceptable treatment for appendicitis.

“This led to some patients undergoing appendectomy who did not have appendicitis or who might have been successfully treated with antibiotics or an another course of antibiotics,” they wrote. “Future studies should investigate protocols for further imaging or antibiotic treatment for patients who develop recurrent appendicitis after they were initially treated with antibiotics.”

In the recurrence group, the majority were found to have uncomplicated appendicitis, but complicated appendicitis was seen in two patients between 2 and 5 years after the index admission.

There was a significant 17.9% higher complication rate in the appendectomy group, compared with the antibiotic group – 24.4% versus 6.5% – at 5 years and two patients in the appendectomy group had severe complications requiring reoperation.

They suggested that the higher complication rate with surgery, which was mostly attributable to infections, could be reduced by the use of laparoscopic appendectomy, which is also associated with faster recovery.

The median length of hospital stay was 3 days for both the appendectomy group and the antibiotics-only group, but patients randomized to appendectomy took a median of 22 days of sick leave, compared with 11 days for those randomized to antibiotics (P less than .001).

In the absence of standard protocol on treating appendicitis with antibiotics, the authors noted that they took a conservative approach, using broad-spectrum antibiotics and keeping patients in hospital for 3 days for observation.

“The success of antibiotic treatment for appendicitis calls into question prior beliefs that appendicitis inevitably results in serious intra-abdominal infection if appendectomy is not performed.”

The study was supported by the Mary and Georg C. Ehrnrooth Foundation, the EVO Foundation, and Turku University. One author declared lecture fees from three pharmaceutical companies but no other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Salminen P et al. JAMA 2018;320:1259-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13201.

LAS VEGAS – Up to 22% of opioid abusers also abuse gabapentin, taking high doses of the antiepileptic for its psychoactive effects, or to potentiate the effect of opioids.

ah_designs/Getty Images

The drug – the 10th most commonly prescribed in the United States – is increasingly implicated in overdose deaths. In response, several states have recently reclassified the antiepileptic as a Schedule V controlled substance. Other states have declined to go that far, but have added gabapentin (Neurontin and others) to the drugs that must be reported to state prescription monitoring programs.

“Gabapentin and pregabalin [Lyrica] are versatile and important drugs that are widely prescribed and used off label for a number of conditions from seizure disorder to fibromyalgia,” said Joseph Pergolizzi Jr., MD, who discussed the issue during the annual PAINWeek. “Abuse patterns differ somewhat from abuse patterns with prescription opioids. People who misuse gabapentinoids tend to already use other drugs inappropriately. It’s rare to find a person who only takes them recreationally, but it is increasingly common to find polydrug abusers who take gabapentinoids.”

Gabapentin abuse appears to be more common in Europe than in the United States, where it’s just beginning to emerge, Dr. Pergolizzi said. And the picture is more nuanced than it might first appear: Many of those who are misusing the drug are using it as a “do-it-yourself” opioid withdrawal aid, he said in an interview.

At the meeting, he presented a literature review comprising 46 papers on pregabalin abuse and 263 on gabapentin abuse. Several important themes arose from these papers, said Dr. Pergolizzi, cofounder and chief operating officer of NEMA Research Inc., Naples, Fla.:

• Gabapentin and pregabalin are being prescribed off label for numerous conditions, including bipolar disorder, neuropathic pain, diabetic neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, attention deficit disorder, restless leg syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, periodic limb movement disorder of sleep, migraine, drug and alcohol withdrawal seizures, chronic low back pain, and even menopausal symptoms.
• About a one-third of users experience withdrawal symptoms with sudden discontinuation. Symptoms include disorientation, anxiety, insomnia, heart palpitations, diaphoresis, and abdominal cramps.
• Risk factors for abuse are emerging. These include opioid use disorders, mental illnesses, and a history of taking supratherapeutic doses of the drugs. Age and sex don’t seem to be a consistent risk factor for abuse.
• Abusers can obtain nonprescription gabapentinoids more easily each year, including street sales and online orders, Dr. Pergolizzi said. “A Google search conducted in July for ‘buy gabapentin without a prescription’ yielded 4.48 million results and ‘buy pregabalin without a prescription,’ 622,000. A similar search conducted in September 2017 yielded 1.19 million and 352,000 results, respectively.”
• Few urine drug assays screen for gabapentinoids, which makes them easy to conceal in random drug testing.

Reports of gabapentin-involved drug overdoses and even deaths have recently emerged in the United States, particularly in the opioid abuse-plagued Appalachian states. An article in May in Drug and Alcohol Dependence examined the prevalence of gabapentin in postmortem toxicology in drug overdose deaths in four Appalachian states in 2015 (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;186:80-5). Rates were 4% in eastern Tennessee, 15% in West Virginia, 20% in North Carolina, and 41% in Kentucky.

Three states have now added gabapentin to their list of Schedule V controlled substances: Kentucky in 2017, West Virginia this May, and Tennessee in July.

Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia, and Massachusetts have taken a different tack to controlling dispensing. In those states, all pharmacies, prescribers, and wholesalers must report all dispensing and sales of gabapentin to their prescription monitoring databases.

Dr. Pergolizzi disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pergolizzi J et al. PAINWeek 2018, Poster 55.

LAS VEGAS – Up to 22% of opioid abusers also abuse gabapentin, taking high doses of the antiepileptic for its psychoactive effects, or to potentiate the effect of opioids.

ah_designs/Getty Images

The drug – the 10th most commonly prescribed in the United States – is increasingly implicated in overdose deaths. In response, several states have recently reclassified the antiepileptic as a Schedule V controlled substance. Other states have declined to go that far, but have added gabapentin (Neurontin and others) to the drugs that must be reported to state prescription monitoring programs.

“Gabapentin and pregabalin [Lyrica] are versatile and important drugs that are widely prescribed and used off label for a number of conditions from seizure disorder to fibromyalgia,” said Joseph Pergolizzi Jr., MD, who discussed the issue during the annual PAINWeek. “Abuse patterns differ somewhat from abuse patterns with prescription opioids. People who misuse gabapentinoids tend to already use other drugs inappropriately. It’s rare to find a person who only takes them recreationally, but it is increasingly common to find polydrug abusers who take gabapentinoids.”

Gabapentin abuse appears to be more common in Europe than in the United States, where it’s just beginning to emerge, Dr. Pergolizzi said. And the picture is more nuanced than it might first appear: Many of those who are misusing the drug are using it as a “do-it-yourself” opioid withdrawal aid, he said in an interview.

At the meeting, he presented a literature review comprising 46 papers on pregabalin abuse and 263 on gabapentin abuse. Several important themes arose from these papers, said Dr. Pergolizzi, cofounder and chief operating officer of NEMA Research Inc., Naples, Fla.:

• Gabapentin and pregabalin are being prescribed off label for numerous conditions, including bipolar disorder, neuropathic pain, diabetic neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, attention deficit disorder, restless leg syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, periodic limb movement disorder of sleep, migraine, drug and alcohol withdrawal seizures, chronic low back pain, and even menopausal symptoms.
• About a one-third of users experience withdrawal symptoms with sudden discontinuation. Symptoms include disorientation, anxiety, insomnia, heart palpitations, diaphoresis, and abdominal cramps.
• Risk factors for abuse are emerging. These include opioid use disorders, mental illnesses, and a history of taking supratherapeutic doses of the drugs. Age and sex don’t seem to be a consistent risk factor for abuse.
• Abusers can obtain nonprescription gabapentinoids more easily each year, including street sales and online orders, Dr. Pergolizzi said. “A Google search conducted in July for ‘buy gabapentin without a prescription’ yielded 4.48 million results and ‘buy pregabalin without a prescription,’ 622,000. A similar search conducted in September 2017 yielded 1.19 million and 352,000 results, respectively.”
• Few urine drug assays screen for gabapentinoids, which makes them easy to conceal in random drug testing.

Reports of gabapentin-involved drug overdoses and even deaths have recently emerged in the United States, particularly in the opioid abuse-plagued Appalachian states. An article in May in Drug and Alcohol Dependence examined the prevalence of gabapentin in postmortem toxicology in drug overdose deaths in four Appalachian states in 2015 (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;186:80-5). Rates were 4% in eastern Tennessee, 15% in West Virginia, 20% in North Carolina, and 41% in Kentucky.

Three states have now added gabapentin to their list of Schedule V controlled substances: Kentucky in 2017, West Virginia this May, and Tennessee in July.

Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia, and Massachusetts have taken a different tack to controlling dispensing. In those states, all pharmacies, prescribers, and wholesalers must report all dispensing and sales of gabapentin to their prescription monitoring databases.

Dr. Pergolizzi disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pergolizzi J et al. PAINWeek 2018, Poster 55.

LAS VEGAS – Up to 22% of opioid abusers also abuse gabapentin, taking high doses of the antiepileptic for its psychoactive effects, or to potentiate the effect of opioids.

ah_designs/Getty Images

The drug – the 10th most commonly prescribed in the United States – is increasingly implicated in overdose deaths. In response, several states have recently reclassified the antiepileptic as a Schedule V controlled substance. Other states have declined to go that far, but have added gabapentin (Neurontin and others) to the drugs that must be reported to state prescription monitoring programs.

“Gabapentin and pregabalin [Lyrica] are versatile and important drugs that are widely prescribed and used off label for a number of conditions from seizure disorder to fibromyalgia,” said Joseph Pergolizzi Jr., MD, who discussed the issue during the annual PAINWeek. “Abuse patterns differ somewhat from abuse patterns with prescription opioids. People who misuse gabapentinoids tend to already use other drugs inappropriately. It’s rare to find a person who only takes them recreationally, but it is increasingly common to find polydrug abusers who take gabapentinoids.”

Gabapentin abuse appears to be more common in Europe than in the United States, where it’s just beginning to emerge, Dr. Pergolizzi said. And the picture is more nuanced than it might first appear: Many of those who are misusing the drug are using it as a “do-it-yourself” opioid withdrawal aid, he said in an interview.

At the meeting, he presented a literature review comprising 46 papers on pregabalin abuse and 263 on gabapentin abuse. Several important themes arose from these papers, said Dr. Pergolizzi, cofounder and chief operating officer of NEMA Research Inc., Naples, Fla.:

• Gabapentin and pregabalin are being prescribed off label for numerous conditions, including bipolar disorder, neuropathic pain, diabetic neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, attention deficit disorder, restless leg syndrome, trigeminal neuralgia, periodic limb movement disorder of sleep, migraine, drug and alcohol withdrawal seizures, chronic low back pain, and even menopausal symptoms.
• About a one-third of users experience withdrawal symptoms with sudden discontinuation. Symptoms include disorientation, anxiety, insomnia, heart palpitations, diaphoresis, and abdominal cramps.
• Risk factors for abuse are emerging. These include opioid use disorders, mental illnesses, and a history of taking supratherapeutic doses of the drugs. Age and sex don’t seem to be a consistent risk factor for abuse.
• Abusers can obtain nonprescription gabapentinoids more easily each year, including street sales and online orders, Dr. Pergolizzi said. “A Google search conducted in July for ‘buy gabapentin without a prescription’ yielded 4.48 million results and ‘buy pregabalin without a prescription,’ 622,000. A similar search conducted in September 2017 yielded 1.19 million and 352,000 results, respectively.”
• Few urine drug assays screen for gabapentinoids, which makes them easy to conceal in random drug testing.

Reports of gabapentin-involved drug overdoses and even deaths have recently emerged in the United States, particularly in the opioid abuse-plagued Appalachian states. An article in May in Drug and Alcohol Dependence examined the prevalence of gabapentin in postmortem toxicology in drug overdose deaths in four Appalachian states in 2015 (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;186:80-5). Rates were 4% in eastern Tennessee, 15% in West Virginia, 20% in North Carolina, and 41% in Kentucky.

Three states have now added gabapentin to their list of Schedule V controlled substances: Kentucky in 2017, West Virginia this May, and Tennessee in July.

Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia, and Massachusetts have taken a different tack to controlling dispensing. In those states, all pharmacies, prescribers, and wholesalers must report all dispensing and sales of gabapentin to their prescription monitoring databases.

Dr. Pergolizzi disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pergolizzi J et al. PAINWeek 2018, Poster 55.

Health care in the United States has seen tremendous change in the last 2-3 decades, stemming from a dramatic push to contain spending, a call to action to improve quality and safety, and a boom in technology and medical advancement.

While the specialty of hospital medicine in the United States matured in response to these calls to action, it mostly flourished amidst – and as a result of – market consolidation, cost containment, the rise in the underinsured, and the flight of primary care from hospitals.

Changes in the health care industry have paralleled other parts of our society. Health care organizations, like schools, churches, theaters, parks, and sports teams, are part of the social fabric of communities. They provide stability to communities as employers, educators, social supporters, and the provision of services. It is no wonder then, that smaller communities, rural areas in particular, flourish or wither when one or more of these institutions, especially health care, fail them.

Health disparities result from any number of factors but particularly when communities are destabilized. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has studied this across the United States. For example, in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn., where I live, life expectancy varies by over 10 years along the interstate highway that runs through the metro area. Similarly, this disparity is seen between urban and rural Kentucky.

To be sure, the confounding social determinants of health and the mitigating strategies for the communities are different in urban Minneapolis than in Wolfe County, Kentucky. However, much of the work around health care reform (and therefore, hospital medicine) has centered around urban populations such as Minneapolis rather than rural populations such as Wolfe County. While 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban centers, that still means that 1 in 5 people live in rural America – spread across 97% of the U.S. land mass. These rural populations are exceedingly diverse, and warrant exceedingly diverse solutions.

Eighteen years ago, when I started my career in hospital medicine, I would never have thought I would be a spokesman for rural care. I identified as an urban academic hospitalist at a safety net hospital known for serving the urban poor and diverse refugee populations. But I had not anticipated mergers involving urban and rural hospitals, nor our resulting responsibility for staffing several critical access hospitals in another state.

It was hard in the beginning to recruit hospitalists to rural areas, so I worked in those areas myself, and experienced the rich practice in nonurban centers. As our partners also joined in our efforts to staff these hospitals, they had similar experiences. Now we can’t keep physicians away. That is not to say that the challenges are over.

Since 2010, 26 states lost rural hospitals – over 80 hospitals in total. High premiums in the individual health insurance market have driven healthy people out of risk pools, pushed payers out of the market, driving premiums higher still, resulting in coverage deserts. Consolidation and alignment with urban and national health care organizations initially brought hope to cash-strapped rural hospitals. Instead of improving local access, however, referrals to urban centers drained rural hospitals of their sources of income.

Economic instability has further destabilized communities. Rural America is exceptionally diverse, and has higher rates of poverty and the working poor, a shrinking job market that still hasn’t recovered from the 2008 recession, and higher rates of disability when compared to urban America. Do I even need to mention the rural opioid epidemic? Or the rural physician crisis, with a dwindling 12% of primary care and 8% of specialty care in these communities?

There is hope. During a late-night text conversation with a millennial nocturnist who splits his time between large and small hospitals, I received this message at 11:42 p.m.: “I think I feel more appreciated/valued/respected out here. You know how it is at the smaller hospitals.”

This was a comment the young hospitalist made after he shared with me that, lately, he had been in a “funk.” Innovations such as telemedicine have brought balance to overworked rural family doctors and excitement to young, tech savvy hospitalists. Opportunities to educate rural nurses and increase the level of care, keeping patients local, have excited academic hospitalists and rural CFOs alike. For a physician in a high burnout specialty, a long peaceful drive through the country might be just what’s needed to encourage a few moments of mindfulness.

Many of our urban health systems have combined with rural ones. It’s time to embrace it. Ignoring the health disparities in rural America divides us and diminishes essential parts of our health care system. Calling the hospitals our patients are referred from “OSH” (Outside Hospitals) will only perpetuate that.

Hospitalists have an opportunity to play an important role in stabilizing rural communities, reviving rural health systems, and providing local access to health care. Let’s embrace this opportunity to make a lasting impact on this frontier in hospital medicine.

Dr. Siy is chair of the department of hospital medicine at HealthPartners in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn., and a member of the SHM board of directors.

Health care in the United States has seen tremendous change in the last 2-3 decades, stemming from a dramatic push to contain spending, a call to action to improve quality and safety, and a boom in technology and medical advancement.

While the specialty of hospital medicine in the United States matured in response to these calls to action, it mostly flourished amidst – and as a result of – market consolidation, cost containment, the rise in the underinsured, and the flight of primary care from hospitals.

Changes in the health care industry have paralleled other parts of our society. Health care organizations, like schools, churches, theaters, parks, and sports teams, are part of the social fabric of communities. They provide stability to communities as employers, educators, social supporters, and the provision of services. It is no wonder then, that smaller communities, rural areas in particular, flourish or wither when one or more of these institutions, especially health care, fail them.

Health disparities result from any number of factors but particularly when communities are destabilized. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has studied this across the United States. For example, in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn., where I live, life expectancy varies by over 10 years along the interstate highway that runs through the metro area. Similarly, this disparity is seen between urban and rural Kentucky.

To be sure, the confounding social determinants of health and the mitigating strategies for the communities are different in urban Minneapolis than in Wolfe County, Kentucky. However, much of the work around health care reform (and therefore, hospital medicine) has centered around urban populations such as Minneapolis rather than rural populations such as Wolfe County. While 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban centers, that still means that 1 in 5 people live in rural America – spread across 97% of the U.S. land mass. These rural populations are exceedingly diverse, and warrant exceedingly diverse solutions.

Eighteen years ago, when I started my career in hospital medicine, I would never have thought I would be a spokesman for rural care. I identified as an urban academic hospitalist at a safety net hospital known for serving the urban poor and diverse refugee populations. But I had not anticipated mergers involving urban and rural hospitals, nor our resulting responsibility for staffing several critical access hospitals in another state.

It was hard in the beginning to recruit hospitalists to rural areas, so I worked in those areas myself, and experienced the rich practice in nonurban centers. As our partners also joined in our efforts to staff these hospitals, they had similar experiences. Now we can’t keep physicians away. That is not to say that the challenges are over.

Since 2010, 26 states lost rural hospitals – over 80 hospitals in total. High premiums in the individual health insurance market have driven healthy people out of risk pools, pushed payers out of the market, driving premiums higher still, resulting in coverage deserts. Consolidation and alignment with urban and national health care organizations initially brought hope to cash-strapped rural hospitals. Instead of improving local access, however, referrals to urban centers drained rural hospitals of their sources of income.

Economic instability has further destabilized communities. Rural America is exceptionally diverse, and has higher rates of poverty and the working poor, a shrinking job market that still hasn’t recovered from the 2008 recession, and higher rates of disability when compared to urban America. Do I even need to mention the rural opioid epidemic? Or the rural physician crisis, with a dwindling 12% of primary care and 8% of specialty care in these communities?

There is hope. During a late-night text conversation with a millennial nocturnist who splits his time between large and small hospitals, I received this message at 11:42 p.m.: “I think I feel more appreciated/valued/respected out here. You know how it is at the smaller hospitals.”

This was a comment the young hospitalist made after he shared with me that, lately, he had been in a “funk.” Innovations such as telemedicine have brought balance to overworked rural family doctors and excitement to young, tech savvy hospitalists. Opportunities to educate rural nurses and increase the level of care, keeping patients local, have excited academic hospitalists and rural CFOs alike. For a physician in a high burnout specialty, a long peaceful drive through the country might be just what’s needed to encourage a few moments of mindfulness.

Many of our urban health systems have combined with rural ones. It’s time to embrace it. Ignoring the health disparities in rural America divides us and diminishes essential parts of our health care system. Calling the hospitals our patients are referred from “OSH” (Outside Hospitals) will only perpetuate that.

Hospitalists have an opportunity to play an important role in stabilizing rural communities, reviving rural health systems, and providing local access to health care. Let’s embrace this opportunity to make a lasting impact on this frontier in hospital medicine.

Dr. Siy is chair of the department of hospital medicine at HealthPartners in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn., and a member of the SHM board of directors.

Health care in the United States has seen tremendous change in the last 2-3 decades, stemming from a dramatic push to contain spending, a call to action to improve quality and safety, and a boom in technology and medical advancement.

While the specialty of hospital medicine in the United States matured in response to these calls to action, it mostly flourished amidst – and as a result of – market consolidation, cost containment, the rise in the underinsured, and the flight of primary care from hospitals.

Changes in the health care industry have paralleled other parts of our society. Health care organizations, like schools, churches, theaters, parks, and sports teams, are part of the social fabric of communities. They provide stability to communities as employers, educators, social supporters, and the provision of services. It is no wonder then, that smaller communities, rural areas in particular, flourish or wither when one or more of these institutions, especially health care, fail them.

Health disparities result from any number of factors but particularly when communities are destabilized. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has studied this across the United States. For example, in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn., where I live, life expectancy varies by over 10 years along the interstate highway that runs through the metro area. Similarly, this disparity is seen between urban and rural Kentucky.

To be sure, the confounding social determinants of health and the mitigating strategies for the communities are different in urban Minneapolis than in Wolfe County, Kentucky. However, much of the work around health care reform (and therefore, hospital medicine) has centered around urban populations such as Minneapolis rather than rural populations such as Wolfe County. While 80% of the U.S. population lives in urban centers, that still means that 1 in 5 people live in rural America – spread across 97% of the U.S. land mass. These rural populations are exceedingly diverse, and warrant exceedingly diverse solutions.

Eighteen years ago, when I started my career in hospital medicine, I would never have thought I would be a spokesman for rural care. I identified as an urban academic hospitalist at a safety net hospital known for serving the urban poor and diverse refugee populations. But I had not anticipated mergers involving urban and rural hospitals, nor our resulting responsibility for staffing several critical access hospitals in another state.

It was hard in the beginning to recruit hospitalists to rural areas, so I worked in those areas myself, and experienced the rich practice in nonurban centers. As our partners also joined in our efforts to staff these hospitals, they had similar experiences. Now we can’t keep physicians away. That is not to say that the challenges are over.

Since 2010, 26 states lost rural hospitals – over 80 hospitals in total. High premiums in the individual health insurance market have driven healthy people out of risk pools, pushed payers out of the market, driving premiums higher still, resulting in coverage deserts. Consolidation and alignment with urban and national health care organizations initially brought hope to cash-strapped rural hospitals. Instead of improving local access, however, referrals to urban centers drained rural hospitals of their sources of income.

Economic instability has further destabilized communities. Rural America is exceptionally diverse, and has higher rates of poverty and the working poor, a shrinking job market that still hasn’t recovered from the 2008 recession, and higher rates of disability when compared to urban America. Do I even need to mention the rural opioid epidemic? Or the rural physician crisis, with a dwindling 12% of primary care and 8% of specialty care in these communities?

There is hope. During a late-night text conversation with a millennial nocturnist who splits his time between large and small hospitals, I received this message at 11:42 p.m.: “I think I feel more appreciated/valued/respected out here. You know how it is at the smaller hospitals.”

This was a comment the young hospitalist made after he shared with me that, lately, he had been in a “funk.” Innovations such as telemedicine have brought balance to overworked rural family doctors and excitement to young, tech savvy hospitalists. Opportunities to educate rural nurses and increase the level of care, keeping patients local, have excited academic hospitalists and rural CFOs alike. For a physician in a high burnout specialty, a long peaceful drive through the country might be just what’s needed to encourage a few moments of mindfulness.

Many of our urban health systems have combined with rural ones. It’s time to embrace it. Ignoring the health disparities in rural America divides us and diminishes essential parts of our health care system. Calling the hospitals our patients are referred from “OSH” (Outside Hospitals) will only perpetuate that.

Hospitalists have an opportunity to play an important role in stabilizing rural communities, reviving rural health systems, and providing local access to health care. Let’s embrace this opportunity to make a lasting impact on this frontier in hospital medicine.

Dr. Siy is chair of the department of hospital medicine at HealthPartners in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn., and a member of the SHM board of directors.

ATLANTA – It took less than a year to curb overuse of intravenous antibiotics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, according to a report given at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Overuse of IV antibiotics – continuing IV formulations when oral formulations would work just as well – is a widespread concern in hospital medicine. Patients can often be switched to an oral antibiotic after an initial IV course. It lowers costs, lessens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and reduces IV complications, but timely transitions don’t always happen.

They certainly weren’t happening at Cincinnati Children’s. “Despite a strong antimicrobial stewardship program, we identified a problem with overuse of IV antibiotics. The majority of pediatric patients admitted to an in-hospital service were started on IV antibiotics regardless of diagnosis or condition. Conversion to enteral antibiotics was often not considered until the day of discharge, even if patients were taking other enteral medications earlier in the admission,” said project leader Sonya Girdwood, MD, a research fellow at the hospital.

To get a handle on the problem, her team focused on two common IV antibiotics, ampicillin and clindamycin, that have oral equivalents with equal bioavailability: amoxicillin in the case of ampicillin, and oral clindamycin. To further define the project, they zeroed in on two common indications: clindamycin for uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and ampicillin for community-acquired pneumonia, in children over 2 months old.

The team figured that, if patients were able to take other oral medications, they should also be able to take oral antibiotics, so the goal of the project was to increase the rate of antibiotics given orally in children who were taking other enteral medications.

That percentage was 44% at baseline, and increased to 80% by month 8, saving an estimated $30,000 annually. There was no increase in 30-day readmissions. Length of stay held steady overall at about a day and half, but Dr. Girdwood suspected it might have been reduced for cellulitis.

Improvement efforts focused on residents and started in January 2017. Among the first lessons was that IV ampicillin is about 21 times more expensive than amoxicillin and that IV clindamycin is about twice as expensive as its oral formulation.

Residents were tasked with forming a plan at admission to transition children to oral antibiotics as soon as possible and to discuss those plans with attending physicians in preround huddles. Often, “this led to [transition] orders being placed even before rounds started,” Dr. Girdwood said.

A time was set up during evening huddles – 10 p.m. – for residents working overnight to discuss transition timing with attending. Failures – patients still on IV clindamycin or ampicillin when they were taking oral meds – were identified and shared with resident teams.

The gains have been maintained for almost a year with little backsliding; residents are reminded weekly of transition goals.

Children with skin and soft-tissue infections with bone or eye involvement were excluded from the project, along with pneumonia patients with chest tubes or complex or loculated effusions requiring a surgery consult.

There was no external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – It took less than a year to curb overuse of intravenous antibiotics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, according to a report given at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Overuse of IV antibiotics – continuing IV formulations when oral formulations would work just as well – is a widespread concern in hospital medicine. Patients can often be switched to an oral antibiotic after an initial IV course. It lowers costs, lessens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and reduces IV complications, but timely transitions don’t always happen.

They certainly weren’t happening at Cincinnati Children’s. “Despite a strong antimicrobial stewardship program, we identified a problem with overuse of IV antibiotics. The majority of pediatric patients admitted to an in-hospital service were started on IV antibiotics regardless of diagnosis or condition. Conversion to enteral antibiotics was often not considered until the day of discharge, even if patients were taking other enteral medications earlier in the admission,” said project leader Sonya Girdwood, MD, a research fellow at the hospital.

To get a handle on the problem, her team focused on two common IV antibiotics, ampicillin and clindamycin, that have oral equivalents with equal bioavailability: amoxicillin in the case of ampicillin, and oral clindamycin. To further define the project, they zeroed in on two common indications: clindamycin for uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and ampicillin for community-acquired pneumonia, in children over 2 months old.

The team figured that, if patients were able to take other oral medications, they should also be able to take oral antibiotics, so the goal of the project was to increase the rate of antibiotics given orally in children who were taking other enteral medications.

That percentage was 44% at baseline, and increased to 80% by month 8, saving an estimated $30,000 annually. There was no increase in 30-day readmissions. Length of stay held steady overall at about a day and half, but Dr. Girdwood suspected it might have been reduced for cellulitis.

Improvement efforts focused on residents and started in January 2017. Among the first lessons was that IV ampicillin is about 21 times more expensive than amoxicillin and that IV clindamycin is about twice as expensive as its oral formulation.

Residents were tasked with forming a plan at admission to transition children to oral antibiotics as soon as possible and to discuss those plans with attending physicians in preround huddles. Often, “this led to [transition] orders being placed even before rounds started,” Dr. Girdwood said.

A time was set up during evening huddles – 10 p.m. – for residents working overnight to discuss transition timing with attending. Failures – patients still on IV clindamycin or ampicillin when they were taking oral meds – were identified and shared with resident teams.

The gains have been maintained for almost a year with little backsliding; residents are reminded weekly of transition goals.

Children with skin and soft-tissue infections with bone or eye involvement were excluded from the project, along with pneumonia patients with chest tubes or complex or loculated effusions requiring a surgery consult.

There was no external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – It took less than a year to curb overuse of intravenous antibiotics at the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, according to a report given at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Overuse of IV antibiotics – continuing IV formulations when oral formulations would work just as well – is a widespread concern in hospital medicine. Patients can often be switched to an oral antibiotic after an initial IV course. It lowers costs, lessens the risk of antimicrobial resistance, and reduces IV complications, but timely transitions don’t always happen.

They certainly weren’t happening at Cincinnati Children’s. “Despite a strong antimicrobial stewardship program, we identified a problem with overuse of IV antibiotics. The majority of pediatric patients admitted to an in-hospital service were started on IV antibiotics regardless of diagnosis or condition. Conversion to enteral antibiotics was often not considered until the day of discharge, even if patients were taking other enteral medications earlier in the admission,” said project leader Sonya Girdwood, MD, a research fellow at the hospital.

To get a handle on the problem, her team focused on two common IV antibiotics, ampicillin and clindamycin, that have oral equivalents with equal bioavailability: amoxicillin in the case of ampicillin, and oral clindamycin. To further define the project, they zeroed in on two common indications: clindamycin for uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections, and ampicillin for community-acquired pneumonia, in children over 2 months old.

The team figured that, if patients were able to take other oral medications, they should also be able to take oral antibiotics, so the goal of the project was to increase the rate of antibiotics given orally in children who were taking other enteral medications.

That percentage was 44% at baseline, and increased to 80% by month 8, saving an estimated $30,000 annually. There was no increase in 30-day readmissions. Length of stay held steady overall at about a day and half, but Dr. Girdwood suspected it might have been reduced for cellulitis.

Improvement efforts focused on residents and started in January 2017. Among the first lessons was that IV ampicillin is about 21 times more expensive than amoxicillin and that IV clindamycin is about twice as expensive as its oral formulation.

Residents were tasked with forming a plan at admission to transition children to oral antibiotics as soon as possible and to discuss those plans with attending physicians in preround huddles. Often, “this led to [transition] orders being placed even before rounds started,” Dr. Girdwood said.

A time was set up during evening huddles – 10 p.m. – for residents working overnight to discuss transition timing with attending. Failures – patients still on IV clindamycin or ampicillin when they were taking oral meds – were identified and shared with resident teams.

The gains have been maintained for almost a year with little backsliding; residents are reminded weekly of transition goals.

Children with skin and soft-tissue infections with bone or eye involvement were excluded from the project, along with pneumonia patients with chest tubes or complex or loculated effusions requiring a surgery consult.

There was no external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Severe influenza is an independent risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis with an accompanying increased mortality in the ICU, according to a multicenter retrospective cohort study at seven tertiary centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: Schauwvlieghe AFAD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul 31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30274-1

Severe influenza is an independent risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis with an accompanying increased mortality in the ICU, according to a multicenter retrospective cohort study at seven tertiary centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: Schauwvlieghe AFAD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul 31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30274-1

Severe influenza is an independent risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis with an accompanying increased mortality in the ICU, according to a multicenter retrospective cohort study at seven tertiary centers in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Wikimedia Commons

SOURCE: Schauwvlieghe AFAD et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2018 Jul 31. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30274-1

PARIS – High relative troponin I concentrations in the blood of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been found to be a remarkably powerful predictor of all-cause mortality even after researchers adjusted for all major cardiovascular and COPD prognostic indicators, according to a late-breaker presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Troponin I is detectable in the plasma of most patients with COPD, but relative increases in troponin I correlate with greater relative increases in most cardiovascular and COPD risk factors, according to Benjamin Waschki, MD, Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

The relationship between increased troponin I and increased all-cause mortality was observed in an on-going prospective multicenter cohort of COPD patients followed at 31 centers in Germany. The cohort is called COSYCONET and it began in 2010. The current analysis evaluated 2,020 COPD patients without regard to stage of disease.

There were 136 deaths over the course of follow-up. Without adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for death was more than twofold higher in the highest quartile of troponin I (equal to or greater than 6.6 ng/mL), when compared with the lowest (under 2.5 ng/mL) (HR, 2.42; P less than .001). Graphically, the mortality curves for each of the quartiles began to separate at about 12 months, widening in a stepwise manner for greater likelihood of death from the lowest to highest quartiles.

The risk of death from any cause remained elevated for the highest relative to lowest troponin I quartiles after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and after adjusting for COPD severity. Again, there was a distinct stepwise separation of the mortality curves for each higher troponin quartile,

Of particular importance, troponin I remained predictive beyond the BODE index, which is a currently employed prognostic mortality predictor in COPD, according to Dr. Waschki. When defining elevated troponin as greater than 6 ng/ML and a high BODE score as greater than 4, mortality was higher for those with a high BODE and low troponin than a high troponin and low BODE, (P less than .001), but a high troponin I was associated with a higher risk of mortality when BODE was low (P less than .001). Moreover, when both troponin I and BODE were elevated, all-cause mortality was more than doubled, relative to those without either risk factor (HR, 2.56; P = .003), Dr. Waschki reported.

After researchers adjusted for major cardiovascular risk factors, such as history of MI and renal impairment, and for major COPD risk factors, such as 6-minute walk test and BODE index, those in the highest quartile had a more than 50% greater risk of death relative to those in the lower quartile over the 3 years of follow-up (HR, 1.69; P = .007), according to Dr. Waschki.

Although troponin I is best known for its diagnostic role in MI, it is now being evaluated as a risk stratifier for many chronic diseases, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, explained Dr. Waschki in providing background for this study. He reported that many groups are looking at this as a marker of risk in a variety of chronic diseases.

In fact, a group working independently published a study in COPD just weeks before the ERS Congress that was complementary to those presented by Dr. Waschki. In this study, the goal was to evaluate troponin I as a predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death (Adamson PD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1126-37). Performed as a subgroup analysis of 1,599 COPD patients participating in a large treatment trial, there was an almost fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (HR, 3.7; P = .012) when those in the highest quintile of troponin I (greater than 7.7 ng/ML) were compared with those in the lowest quintile (less than 2.3 ng/mL).

When compared for cardiovascular death, the highest quintile, relative to the lowest quintile, had a more than 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR 20.1; P = .005). In the Adamson et al. study, which evaluated inhaled therapies for COPD, treatment response had no impact on troponin I levels or on the risk of cardiovascular events or death.

Based on this study and his own data, Dr. Waschki believes troponin I, which is readily ordered laboratory value, appears to be a useful tool for identifying COPD patients at high risk of death.

“The major message is that after adjusting for all known COPD and cardiovascular risk factors, troponin I remains a significant independent predictor of mortality,” he said.

Dr. Waschki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

PARIS – High relative troponin I concentrations in the blood of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been found to be a remarkably powerful predictor of all-cause mortality even after researchers adjusted for all major cardiovascular and COPD prognostic indicators, according to a late-breaker presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Troponin I is detectable in the plasma of most patients with COPD, but relative increases in troponin I correlate with greater relative increases in most cardiovascular and COPD risk factors, according to Benjamin Waschki, MD, Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

The relationship between increased troponin I and increased all-cause mortality was observed in an on-going prospective multicenter cohort of COPD patients followed at 31 centers in Germany. The cohort is called COSYCONET and it began in 2010. The current analysis evaluated 2,020 COPD patients without regard to stage of disease.

There were 136 deaths over the course of follow-up. Without adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for death was more than twofold higher in the highest quartile of troponin I (equal to or greater than 6.6 ng/mL), when compared with the lowest (under 2.5 ng/mL) (HR, 2.42; P less than .001). Graphically, the mortality curves for each of the quartiles began to separate at about 12 months, widening in a stepwise manner for greater likelihood of death from the lowest to highest quartiles.

The risk of death from any cause remained elevated for the highest relative to lowest troponin I quartiles after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and after adjusting for COPD severity. Again, there was a distinct stepwise separation of the mortality curves for each higher troponin quartile,

Of particular importance, troponin I remained predictive beyond the BODE index, which is a currently employed prognostic mortality predictor in COPD, according to Dr. Waschki. When defining elevated troponin as greater than 6 ng/ML and a high BODE score as greater than 4, mortality was higher for those with a high BODE and low troponin than a high troponin and low BODE, (P less than .001), but a high troponin I was associated with a higher risk of mortality when BODE was low (P less than .001). Moreover, when both troponin I and BODE were elevated, all-cause mortality was more than doubled, relative to those without either risk factor (HR, 2.56; P = .003), Dr. Waschki reported.

After researchers adjusted for major cardiovascular risk factors, such as history of MI and renal impairment, and for major COPD risk factors, such as 6-minute walk test and BODE index, those in the highest quartile had a more than 50% greater risk of death relative to those in the lower quartile over the 3 years of follow-up (HR, 1.69; P = .007), according to Dr. Waschki.

Although troponin I is best known for its diagnostic role in MI, it is now being evaluated as a risk stratifier for many chronic diseases, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, explained Dr. Waschki in providing background for this study. He reported that many groups are looking at this as a marker of risk in a variety of chronic diseases.

In fact, a group working independently published a study in COPD just weeks before the ERS Congress that was complementary to those presented by Dr. Waschki. In this study, the goal was to evaluate troponin I as a predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death (Adamson PD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1126-37). Performed as a subgroup analysis of 1,599 COPD patients participating in a large treatment trial, there was an almost fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (HR, 3.7; P = .012) when those in the highest quintile of troponin I (greater than 7.7 ng/ML) were compared with those in the lowest quintile (less than 2.3 ng/mL).

When compared for cardiovascular death, the highest quintile, relative to the lowest quintile, had a more than 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR 20.1; P = .005). In the Adamson et al. study, which evaluated inhaled therapies for COPD, treatment response had no impact on troponin I levels or on the risk of cardiovascular events or death.

Based on this study and his own data, Dr. Waschki believes troponin I, which is readily ordered laboratory value, appears to be a useful tool for identifying COPD patients at high risk of death.

“The major message is that after adjusting for all known COPD and cardiovascular risk factors, troponin I remains a significant independent predictor of mortality,” he said.

Dr. Waschki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

PARIS – High relative troponin I concentrations in the blood of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been found to be a remarkably powerful predictor of all-cause mortality even after researchers adjusted for all major cardiovascular and COPD prognostic indicators, according to a late-breaker presentation at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Troponin I is detectable in the plasma of most patients with COPD, but relative increases in troponin I correlate with greater relative increases in most cardiovascular and COPD risk factors, according to Benjamin Waschki, MD, Pulmonary Research Institute, LungenClinic, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

The relationship between increased troponin I and increased all-cause mortality was observed in an on-going prospective multicenter cohort of COPD patients followed at 31 centers in Germany. The cohort is called COSYCONET and it began in 2010. The current analysis evaluated 2,020 COPD patients without regard to stage of disease.

There were 136 deaths over the course of follow-up. Without adjustment, the hazard ratio (HR) for death was more than twofold higher in the highest quartile of troponin I (equal to or greater than 6.6 ng/mL), when compared with the lowest (under 2.5 ng/mL) (HR, 2.42; P less than .001). Graphically, the mortality curves for each of the quartiles began to separate at about 12 months, widening in a stepwise manner for greater likelihood of death from the lowest to highest quartiles.

The risk of death from any cause remained elevated for the highest relative to lowest troponin I quartiles after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and after adjusting for COPD severity. Again, there was a distinct stepwise separation of the mortality curves for each higher troponin quartile,

Of particular importance, troponin I remained predictive beyond the BODE index, which is a currently employed prognostic mortality predictor in COPD, according to Dr. Waschki. When defining elevated troponin as greater than 6 ng/ML and a high BODE score as greater than 4, mortality was higher for those with a high BODE and low troponin than a high troponin and low BODE, (P less than .001), but a high troponin I was associated with a higher risk of mortality when BODE was low (P less than .001). Moreover, when both troponin I and BODE were elevated, all-cause mortality was more than doubled, relative to those without either risk factor (HR, 2.56; P = .003), Dr. Waschki reported.

After researchers adjusted for major cardiovascular risk factors, such as history of MI and renal impairment, and for major COPD risk factors, such as 6-minute walk test and BODE index, those in the highest quartile had a more than 50% greater risk of death relative to those in the lower quartile over the 3 years of follow-up (HR, 1.69; P = .007), according to Dr. Waschki.

Although troponin I is best known for its diagnostic role in MI, it is now being evaluated as a risk stratifier for many chronic diseases, such as heart failure and chronic kidney disease, explained Dr. Waschki in providing background for this study. He reported that many groups are looking at this as a marker of risk in a variety of chronic diseases.

In fact, a group working independently published a study in COPD just weeks before the ERS Congress that was complementary to those presented by Dr. Waschki. In this study, the goal was to evaluate troponin I as a predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death (Adamson PD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:1126-37). Performed as a subgroup analysis of 1,599 COPD patients participating in a large treatment trial, there was an almost fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (HR, 3.7; P = .012) when those in the highest quintile of troponin I (greater than 7.7 ng/ML) were compared with those in the lowest quintile (less than 2.3 ng/mL).

When compared for cardiovascular death, the highest quintile, relative to the lowest quintile, had a more than 20-fold increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR 20.1; P = .005). In the Adamson et al. study, which evaluated inhaled therapies for COPD, treatment response had no impact on troponin I levels or on the risk of cardiovascular events or death.

Based on this study and his own data, Dr. Waschki believes troponin I, which is readily ordered laboratory value, appears to be a useful tool for identifying COPD patients at high risk of death.

“The major message is that after adjusting for all known COPD and cardiovascular risk factors, troponin I remains a significant independent predictor of mortality,” he said.

Dr. Waschki reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Come November 2018, Americans will return to the polls to vote for their representatives in Congress, for governors, and for state legislative seats.

Health care has been a topic of debate since the 2016 elections brought a Republican sweep to the executive and legislative branches, but other issues have since moved to the forefront. Will the midterm elections this year prove health care to be a significant issue at the polls?

Unlikely, said Robert Berenson, MD, FACP, Institute Fellow of the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute. More likely, the election will be a referendum on President Donald Trump, he said. “Things are so partisan right now and it’s all about Trump. I don’t see serious discussion about health policy.”

Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, FCCP, immediate past president of SHM and former chair of the Public Policy Committee, also doesn’t see health care rising to the top of election year issues. But that doesn’t mean health care doesn’t matter to American voters.

“Whether Democrats control the House or Republicans control the House won’t likely make a big difference in terms of impact on the things we care about,” said Dr. Greeno. “The issues they debate in Washington are not going to save the health care system. They are just debating about who is going to pay for what and for whom. To save our health care system, we have to lower the cost of care and only providers can do that.”

What the government can do, he said, is create the right incentives for providers to move away from fee for service and participate in new models that may lower the cost of care. At the same time, “the economy also has to grow at a robust pace, which will make a huge difference. So, recent increases in economic growth rate are welcomed,” said Dr. Greeno.

In 2015, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass bipartisan legislation aimed at moving the health care system away from fee for service: the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act, or MACRA.

However, the law has not been without frustrations, and these concerns will likely not be part of any candidate campaigns in 2018, Dr. Greeno predicted: “There’s not a lot of appetite to reopen the statute (more than) 2 years after it passed.”

MACRA provides clinicians two pathways to reimbursement. The first track, called MIPS (Merit-Based Incentive Payment System), bases a portion of physician reimbursement on scores measured across several categories, including cost and quality. It still operates largely under a fee-for-service framework but is meant to be budget neutral; for every winner there is a loser.

The second track, called the APMs (Alternative Payment Models), requires physicians to take on substantial risk (with potential for reward), if they can achieve specific patient volumes under approved models. However, few providers qualify, especially among hospitalists, though the structure of the program makes it clear that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services intends to have most providers ultimately transition to APMs.

“There’s growing recognition that MACRA, at least the MIPS portion, was a big mistake but Congress can’t go back and say we blew it,” Dr. Berenson said. “CMS has now exempted somewhere between 550,000 and 900,000 clinicians from MACRA,” because they cannot meet the requirements of either pathway without significant hardship.¹

CMS wasn’t considering hospitalists specifically when implementing the law, though hospitalists admit half of the Medicare patients in the United States, Dr. Greeno said. There are very few hospitalists currently participating in Advanced APMs and those that are, do not see the volume of patients the pathway requires.

“What hospitalists do is very conducive to alternative payment models, and we can help those alternative payment models drive improved quality and lowered costs,” said Dr. Greeno. “Hospitals use hospitalists to help them manage risk, so it’s frustrating that most hospitalists will not meet the thresholds for the APM track and benefit from the incentives created.”

However, the Society of Hospital Medicine continues to work on behalf of hospitalists. Thanks to its efforts, Dr. Greeno explained, CMS is planning in 2019 to allow hospitalists to choose to be scored under MIPS based on their hospital’s performance across reporting categories. Or, they can choose to report on their own and opt out of this new “facility-based” option.

“We are working with (CMS) to figure out how to make this new option work,” said Dr. Greeno.

At the state level, 36 governorships are up for grabs and those outcomes could influence the direction of Medicaid. In Kentucky, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing the state to enforce work requirements for Medicaid recipients. However, on June 29, 2018, the D.C. federal district court invalidated the Kentucky HEALTH waiver approval (with the exception of Kentucky’s IMD SUD [institutions for mental disease for substance use disorders] payment waiver authority) and sent it back to HHS to reconsider. Ten other states as of August 2018 had applied for similar waivers.² However, Dr. Berenson believes that most of what could happen to Medicaid will be a topic after the midterm elections and not before.

He also believes drug prices could become an issue in national elections, though there will not be an easy solution from either side. “Democrats will be reluctant to say they’re going to negotiate drug prices; they’re going to want the government to negotiate for Medicare-like pricing.” Republicans, on the other hand, will be reluctant to consider government regulation.

As a general principle leading into the midterms: “Democrats want to avoid an internal war about whether they are for Medicare for all or single payer or not,” Dr. Berenson said. “What I’m hoping doesn’t happen is that it becomes a litmus test for purity where you have to be for single payer. I think would be huge mistake because it’s not realistic that it would ever get there.”

However, he cites an idea from left-leaning Princeton University’s Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs, that Democrats could consider: so-called Midlife Medicare, an option that could be made available to Americans beginning at age 50 years.³ It would represent a new Medicare option, funded by general revenues and premiums, available to people age 50 years and older and those younger than 65 years who are without employer-sponsored health insurance.

Regardless, as the United States catapults toward another election that could disrupt the political system or maintain the relative status quo, Dr. Greeno said hospitalists continue to play key roles in improving American health care.

“There are programs in place where we can get the job done if we in the provider community are creative and participative,” he said. “Some of the most important work being done is coming out of the CMS Innovation Center. Hospitalists continue to be a big part of that, but we knew it would take decades of really hard work and I don’t see anything happening in the midterms to derail this or bring about a massive increase in the pace of change.”
 

References

1. Dickson V. CMS gives more small practices a pass on MACRA. Modern Healthcare. Published June 20, 2017.

2. Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Which States Have Approved and Pending Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers? Kaiser Family Foundation. Published Aug. 8, 2018.

3. Starr P. A new strategy for health care. The American Prospect. Published Jan. 4, 2018. Accessed March 5, 2018.
 

Come November 2018, Americans will return to the polls to vote for their representatives in Congress, for governors, and for state legislative seats.

Health care has been a topic of debate since the 2016 elections brought a Republican sweep to the executive and legislative branches, but other issues have since moved to the forefront. Will the midterm elections this year prove health care to be a significant issue at the polls?

Unlikely, said Robert Berenson, MD, FACP, Institute Fellow of the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute. More likely, the election will be a referendum on President Donald Trump, he said. “Things are so partisan right now and it’s all about Trump. I don’t see serious discussion about health policy.”

Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, FCCP, immediate past president of SHM and former chair of the Public Policy Committee, also doesn’t see health care rising to the top of election year issues. But that doesn’t mean health care doesn’t matter to American voters.

“Whether Democrats control the House or Republicans control the House won’t likely make a big difference in terms of impact on the things we care about,” said Dr. Greeno. “The issues they debate in Washington are not going to save the health care system. They are just debating about who is going to pay for what and for whom. To save our health care system, we have to lower the cost of care and only providers can do that.”

What the government can do, he said, is create the right incentives for providers to move away from fee for service and participate in new models that may lower the cost of care. At the same time, “the economy also has to grow at a robust pace, which will make a huge difference. So, recent increases in economic growth rate are welcomed,” said Dr. Greeno.

In 2015, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass bipartisan legislation aimed at moving the health care system away from fee for service: the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act, or MACRA.

However, the law has not been without frustrations, and these concerns will likely not be part of any candidate campaigns in 2018, Dr. Greeno predicted: “There’s not a lot of appetite to reopen the statute (more than) 2 years after it passed.”

MACRA provides clinicians two pathways to reimbursement. The first track, called MIPS (Merit-Based Incentive Payment System), bases a portion of physician reimbursement on scores measured across several categories, including cost and quality. It still operates largely under a fee-for-service framework but is meant to be budget neutral; for every winner there is a loser.

The second track, called the APMs (Alternative Payment Models), requires physicians to take on substantial risk (with potential for reward), if they can achieve specific patient volumes under approved models. However, few providers qualify, especially among hospitalists, though the structure of the program makes it clear that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services intends to have most providers ultimately transition to APMs.

“There’s growing recognition that MACRA, at least the MIPS portion, was a big mistake but Congress can’t go back and say we blew it,” Dr. Berenson said. “CMS has now exempted somewhere between 550,000 and 900,000 clinicians from MACRA,” because they cannot meet the requirements of either pathway without significant hardship.¹

CMS wasn’t considering hospitalists specifically when implementing the law, though hospitalists admit half of the Medicare patients in the United States, Dr. Greeno said. There are very few hospitalists currently participating in Advanced APMs and those that are, do not see the volume of patients the pathway requires.

“What hospitalists do is very conducive to alternative payment models, and we can help those alternative payment models drive improved quality and lowered costs,” said Dr. Greeno. “Hospitals use hospitalists to help them manage risk, so it’s frustrating that most hospitalists will not meet the thresholds for the APM track and benefit from the incentives created.”

However, the Society of Hospital Medicine continues to work on behalf of hospitalists. Thanks to its efforts, Dr. Greeno explained, CMS is planning in 2019 to allow hospitalists to choose to be scored under MIPS based on their hospital’s performance across reporting categories. Or, they can choose to report on their own and opt out of this new “facility-based” option.

“We are working with (CMS) to figure out how to make this new option work,” said Dr. Greeno.

At the state level, 36 governorships are up for grabs and those outcomes could influence the direction of Medicaid. In Kentucky, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing the state to enforce work requirements for Medicaid recipients. However, on June 29, 2018, the D.C. federal district court invalidated the Kentucky HEALTH waiver approval (with the exception of Kentucky’s IMD SUD [institutions for mental disease for substance use disorders] payment waiver authority) and sent it back to HHS to reconsider. Ten other states as of August 2018 had applied for similar waivers.² However, Dr. Berenson believes that most of what could happen to Medicaid will be a topic after the midterm elections and not before.

He also believes drug prices could become an issue in national elections, though there will not be an easy solution from either side. “Democrats will be reluctant to say they’re going to negotiate drug prices; they’re going to want the government to negotiate for Medicare-like pricing.” Republicans, on the other hand, will be reluctant to consider government regulation.

As a general principle leading into the midterms: “Democrats want to avoid an internal war about whether they are for Medicare for all or single payer or not,” Dr. Berenson said. “What I’m hoping doesn’t happen is that it becomes a litmus test for purity where you have to be for single payer. I think would be huge mistake because it’s not realistic that it would ever get there.”

However, he cites an idea from left-leaning Princeton University’s Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs, that Democrats could consider: so-called Midlife Medicare, an option that could be made available to Americans beginning at age 50 years.³ It would represent a new Medicare option, funded by general revenues and premiums, available to people age 50 years and older and those younger than 65 years who are without employer-sponsored health insurance.

Regardless, as the United States catapults toward another election that could disrupt the political system or maintain the relative status quo, Dr. Greeno said hospitalists continue to play key roles in improving American health care.

“There are programs in place where we can get the job done if we in the provider community are creative and participative,” he said. “Some of the most important work being done is coming out of the CMS Innovation Center. Hospitalists continue to be a big part of that, but we knew it would take decades of really hard work and I don’t see anything happening in the midterms to derail this or bring about a massive increase in the pace of change.”
 

References

1. Dickson V. CMS gives more small practices a pass on MACRA. Modern Healthcare. Published June 20, 2017.

2. Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Which States Have Approved and Pending Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers? Kaiser Family Foundation. Published Aug. 8, 2018.

3. Starr P. A new strategy for health care. The American Prospect. Published Jan. 4, 2018. Accessed March 5, 2018.
 

Come November 2018, Americans will return to the polls to vote for their representatives in Congress, for governors, and for state legislative seats.

Health care has been a topic of debate since the 2016 elections brought a Republican sweep to the executive and legislative branches, but other issues have since moved to the forefront. Will the midterm elections this year prove health care to be a significant issue at the polls?

Unlikely, said Robert Berenson, MD, FACP, Institute Fellow of the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute. More likely, the election will be a referendum on President Donald Trump, he said. “Things are so partisan right now and it’s all about Trump. I don’t see serious discussion about health policy.”

Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, FCCP, immediate past president of SHM and former chair of the Public Policy Committee, also doesn’t see health care rising to the top of election year issues. But that doesn’t mean health care doesn’t matter to American voters.

“Whether Democrats control the House or Republicans control the House won’t likely make a big difference in terms of impact on the things we care about,” said Dr. Greeno. “The issues they debate in Washington are not going to save the health care system. They are just debating about who is going to pay for what and for whom. To save our health care system, we have to lower the cost of care and only providers can do that.”

What the government can do, he said, is create the right incentives for providers to move away from fee for service and participate in new models that may lower the cost of care. At the same time, “the economy also has to grow at a robust pace, which will make a huge difference. So, recent increases in economic growth rate are welcomed,” said Dr. Greeno.

In 2015, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass bipartisan legislation aimed at moving the health care system away from fee for service: the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act, or MACRA.

However, the law has not been without frustrations, and these concerns will likely not be part of any candidate campaigns in 2018, Dr. Greeno predicted: “There’s not a lot of appetite to reopen the statute (more than) 2 years after it passed.”

MACRA provides clinicians two pathways to reimbursement. The first track, called MIPS (Merit-Based Incentive Payment System), bases a portion of physician reimbursement on scores measured across several categories, including cost and quality. It still operates largely under a fee-for-service framework but is meant to be budget neutral; for every winner there is a loser.

The second track, called the APMs (Alternative Payment Models), requires physicians to take on substantial risk (with potential for reward), if they can achieve specific patient volumes under approved models. However, few providers qualify, especially among hospitalists, though the structure of the program makes it clear that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services intends to have most providers ultimately transition to APMs.

“There’s growing recognition that MACRA, at least the MIPS portion, was a big mistake but Congress can’t go back and say we blew it,” Dr. Berenson said. “CMS has now exempted somewhere between 550,000 and 900,000 clinicians from MACRA,” because they cannot meet the requirements of either pathway without significant hardship.¹

CMS wasn’t considering hospitalists specifically when implementing the law, though hospitalists admit half of the Medicare patients in the United States, Dr. Greeno said. There are very few hospitalists currently participating in Advanced APMs and those that are, do not see the volume of patients the pathway requires.

“What hospitalists do is very conducive to alternative payment models, and we can help those alternative payment models drive improved quality and lowered costs,” said Dr. Greeno. “Hospitals use hospitalists to help them manage risk, so it’s frustrating that most hospitalists will not meet the thresholds for the APM track and benefit from the incentives created.”

However, the Society of Hospital Medicine continues to work on behalf of hospitalists. Thanks to its efforts, Dr. Greeno explained, CMS is planning in 2019 to allow hospitalists to choose to be scored under MIPS based on their hospital’s performance across reporting categories. Or, they can choose to report on their own and opt out of this new “facility-based” option.

“We are working with (CMS) to figure out how to make this new option work,” said Dr. Greeno.

At the state level, 36 governorships are up for grabs and those outcomes could influence the direction of Medicaid. In Kentucky, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing the state to enforce work requirements for Medicaid recipients. However, on June 29, 2018, the D.C. federal district court invalidated the Kentucky HEALTH waiver approval (with the exception of Kentucky’s IMD SUD [institutions for mental disease for substance use disorders] payment waiver authority) and sent it back to HHS to reconsider. Ten other states as of August 2018 had applied for similar waivers.² However, Dr. Berenson believes that most of what could happen to Medicaid will be a topic after the midterm elections and not before.

He also believes drug prices could become an issue in national elections, though there will not be an easy solution from either side. “Democrats will be reluctant to say they’re going to negotiate drug prices; they’re going to want the government to negotiate for Medicare-like pricing.” Republicans, on the other hand, will be reluctant to consider government regulation.

As a general principle leading into the midterms: “Democrats want to avoid an internal war about whether they are for Medicare for all or single payer or not,” Dr. Berenson said. “What I’m hoping doesn’t happen is that it becomes a litmus test for purity where you have to be for single payer. I think would be huge mistake because it’s not realistic that it would ever get there.”

However, he cites an idea from left-leaning Princeton University’s Paul Starr, a professor of sociology and public affairs, that Democrats could consider: so-called Midlife Medicare, an option that could be made available to Americans beginning at age 50 years.³ It would represent a new Medicare option, funded by general revenues and premiums, available to people age 50 years and older and those younger than 65 years who are without employer-sponsored health insurance.

Regardless, as the United States catapults toward another election that could disrupt the political system or maintain the relative status quo, Dr. Greeno said hospitalists continue to play key roles in improving American health care.

“There are programs in place where we can get the job done if we in the provider community are creative and participative,” he said. “Some of the most important work being done is coming out of the CMS Innovation Center. Hospitalists continue to be a big part of that, but we knew it would take decades of really hard work and I don’t see anything happening in the midterms to derail this or bring about a massive increase in the pace of change.”
 

References

1. Dickson V. CMS gives more small practices a pass on MACRA. Modern Healthcare. Published June 20, 2017.

2. Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Which States Have Approved and Pending Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers? Kaiser Family Foundation. Published Aug. 8, 2018.

3. Starr P. A new strategy for health care. The American Prospect. Published Jan. 4, 2018. Accessed March 5, 2018.
 

Most in-hospital deaths from community-acquired pneumonia are not preventable with current medical therapy, according to an analysis of deaths at five U.S. hospitals with expertise in pneumonia care.

©marcosmartinezromero/iStockphoto.com

Adults who are hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are at high risk for short-term mortality but it is unclear whether an improvement in care could lower this risk, noted the study authors led by Grant W. Waterer, MBBS, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

“Understanding the circumstances in which CAP patients die could facilitate improvements in the management of CAP by enabling future improvement efforts to focus on common preventable causes of death,” they wrote. Their report was published in CHEST^®.

They therefore performed a secondary analysis of the Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC) study involving adults hospitalized with CAP between January 2010 and June 2012 across five tertiary-care hospitals in the United States.

The clinical characteristics of patients who died in the hospital were compared with those of patients who survived to hospital discharge. Chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, chronic liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, cancer (excluding skin cancer), and diabetes were considered as severe chronic comorbidities based on their association with increased mortality and ICU admission in CAP severity scores.

Deaths caused by septic shock, respiratory failure, multisystem organ failure, cardiopulmonary arrest prior to stabilization of CAP, and endocarditis, were considered to be directly related to CAP.

Conversely, causes of death indirectly related to CAP included acute cardiovascular disease, stroke, acute renal failure, and secondary infections developed after hospitalization. Deaths caused by cancer, cirrhosis, and chronic neurologic conditions were considered unrelated to CAP.

Medical notes were assessed to determine whether the patient received management consistent with current recommendations; for example, antibiotics consistent with guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

End-of-life limitations in care, such as patient/family decision not to proceed with full medical treatment, also were considered by the research team.

Results showed that among the 2,320 patients with radiographically confirmed CAP, 52 died during initial hospitalization, 33 of whom were aged 65 years or older, and 32 of whom had two or more chronic comorbidities.

Most of the in-hospital deaths occurred early in the hospitalization: 35 within the first 10 days of admission, and 5 after 30 days in hospital.

CAP was judged by an expert physician review panel to be the direct cause of death in 27 of the patients, 10 with CAP having an indirect role with major contribution, 9 with CAP having an indirect role with minor contribution, and 6 with CAP having no role in death.

Do-not-resuscitate orders were present at the time of death for 21 of the patients.

Forty-five of the patients were admitted to an ICU, with 37 dying in the ICU. The eight patients who died on the ward after transfer out of the ICU had end-of-life limitations of care in place.

The researchers noted that the number of patients dying in the ICU was greater in the United States, possibly because in Europe fewer patients are admitted to an ICU.

“This discrepancy likely reflects cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe in the role of intensive care for patients with advanced age and/or advanced comorbid conditions,” they noted.

Overall, the physician review panel identified nine patients who had a lapse in quality of in-hospital CAP care, with four of the deaths potentially linked to this lapse in care.

However, two of the patients had end-of-life limitations of care in place, which according to the authors meant that “only two patients undergoing full medical treatment without end-of-life limitations of care had an identified lapse in quality of in-hospital pneumonia care potentially contributing to in-hospital death, including one with a delay in antibiotics for over an hour in the presence of shock and one with initial antibiotics not consistent with IDSA/ATS guidelines.”

The research team concluded that most in-hospital deaths among adult patients admitted with CAP in their study would not have been preventable with higher quality in-hospital pneumonia care.

“Many of the in-hospital deaths among patients admitted with CAP occurred in older patients with severe comorbidities and end-of-life limitations in care,” they noted.

They said the influence of end-of-life limitations on care short of full palliation was an important finding, with all patients who died outside the ICU having end-of-life limitations in care.

“Current diagnostic related group (DRG) and international classification of diseases (ICD) coding systems do not have the necessary nuances to capture these limitations of care, yet they are clearly important factors in determining whether patients experience in-hospital death,” they added.

Dr. Waterer reported no conflicts. Two coauthors reported potential conflicts of interest in relation to consulting fees from several pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Waterer G. et al. CHEST 2018;154(3):628-35. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.021.

Most in-hospital deaths from community-acquired pneumonia are not preventable with current medical therapy, according to an analysis of deaths at five U.S. hospitals with expertise in pneumonia care.

©marcosmartinezromero/iStockphoto.com

Adults who are hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are at high risk for short-term mortality but it is unclear whether an improvement in care could lower this risk, noted the study authors led by Grant W. Waterer, MBBS, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

“Understanding the circumstances in which CAP patients die could facilitate improvements in the management of CAP by enabling future improvement efforts to focus on common preventable causes of death,” they wrote. Their report was published in CHEST^®.

They therefore performed a secondary analysis of the Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC) study involving adults hospitalized with CAP between January 2010 and June 2012 across five tertiary-care hospitals in the United States.

The clinical characteristics of patients who died in the hospital were compared with those of patients who survived to hospital discharge. Chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, chronic liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, cancer (excluding skin cancer), and diabetes were considered as severe chronic comorbidities based on their association with increased mortality and ICU admission in CAP severity scores.

Deaths caused by septic shock, respiratory failure, multisystem organ failure, cardiopulmonary arrest prior to stabilization of CAP, and endocarditis, were considered to be directly related to CAP.

Conversely, causes of death indirectly related to CAP included acute cardiovascular disease, stroke, acute renal failure, and secondary infections developed after hospitalization. Deaths caused by cancer, cirrhosis, and chronic neurologic conditions were considered unrelated to CAP.

Medical notes were assessed to determine whether the patient received management consistent with current recommendations; for example, antibiotics consistent with guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

End-of-life limitations in care, such as patient/family decision not to proceed with full medical treatment, also were considered by the research team.

Results showed that among the 2,320 patients with radiographically confirmed CAP, 52 died during initial hospitalization, 33 of whom were aged 65 years or older, and 32 of whom had two or more chronic comorbidities.

Most of the in-hospital deaths occurred early in the hospitalization: 35 within the first 10 days of admission, and 5 after 30 days in hospital.

CAP was judged by an expert physician review panel to be the direct cause of death in 27 of the patients, 10 with CAP having an indirect role with major contribution, 9 with CAP having an indirect role with minor contribution, and 6 with CAP having no role in death.

Do-not-resuscitate orders were present at the time of death for 21 of the patients.

Forty-five of the patients were admitted to an ICU, with 37 dying in the ICU. The eight patients who died on the ward after transfer out of the ICU had end-of-life limitations of care in place.

The researchers noted that the number of patients dying in the ICU was greater in the United States, possibly because in Europe fewer patients are admitted to an ICU.

“This discrepancy likely reflects cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe in the role of intensive care for patients with advanced age and/or advanced comorbid conditions,” they noted.

Overall, the physician review panel identified nine patients who had a lapse in quality of in-hospital CAP care, with four of the deaths potentially linked to this lapse in care.

However, two of the patients had end-of-life limitations of care in place, which according to the authors meant that “only two patients undergoing full medical treatment without end-of-life limitations of care had an identified lapse in quality of in-hospital pneumonia care potentially contributing to in-hospital death, including one with a delay in antibiotics for over an hour in the presence of shock and one with initial antibiotics not consistent with IDSA/ATS guidelines.”

The research team concluded that most in-hospital deaths among adult patients admitted with CAP in their study would not have been preventable with higher quality in-hospital pneumonia care.

“Many of the in-hospital deaths among patients admitted with CAP occurred in older patients with severe comorbidities and end-of-life limitations in care,” they noted.

They said the influence of end-of-life limitations on care short of full palliation was an important finding, with all patients who died outside the ICU having end-of-life limitations in care.

“Current diagnostic related group (DRG) and international classification of diseases (ICD) coding systems do not have the necessary nuances to capture these limitations of care, yet they are clearly important factors in determining whether patients experience in-hospital death,” they added.

Dr. Waterer reported no conflicts. Two coauthors reported potential conflicts of interest in relation to consulting fees from several pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Waterer G. et al. CHEST 2018;154(3):628-35. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.021.

Most in-hospital deaths from community-acquired pneumonia are not preventable with current medical therapy, according to an analysis of deaths at five U.S. hospitals with expertise in pneumonia care.

©marcosmartinezromero/iStockphoto.com

Adults who are hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are at high risk for short-term mortality but it is unclear whether an improvement in care could lower this risk, noted the study authors led by Grant W. Waterer, MBBS, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago.

“Understanding the circumstances in which CAP patients die could facilitate improvements in the management of CAP by enabling future improvement efforts to focus on common preventable causes of death,” they wrote. Their report was published in CHEST^®.

They therefore performed a secondary analysis of the Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC) study involving adults hospitalized with CAP between January 2010 and June 2012 across five tertiary-care hospitals in the United States.

The clinical characteristics of patients who died in the hospital were compared with those of patients who survived to hospital discharge. Chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, chronic liver disease, cerebrovascular disease, cancer (excluding skin cancer), and diabetes were considered as severe chronic comorbidities based on their association with increased mortality and ICU admission in CAP severity scores.

Deaths caused by septic shock, respiratory failure, multisystem organ failure, cardiopulmonary arrest prior to stabilization of CAP, and endocarditis, were considered to be directly related to CAP.

Conversely, causes of death indirectly related to CAP included acute cardiovascular disease, stroke, acute renal failure, and secondary infections developed after hospitalization. Deaths caused by cancer, cirrhosis, and chronic neurologic conditions were considered unrelated to CAP.

Medical notes were assessed to determine whether the patient received management consistent with current recommendations; for example, antibiotics consistent with guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

End-of-life limitations in care, such as patient/family decision not to proceed with full medical treatment, also were considered by the research team.

Results showed that among the 2,320 patients with radiographically confirmed CAP, 52 died during initial hospitalization, 33 of whom were aged 65 years or older, and 32 of whom had two or more chronic comorbidities.

Most of the in-hospital deaths occurred early in the hospitalization: 35 within the first 10 days of admission, and 5 after 30 days in hospital.

CAP was judged by an expert physician review panel to be the direct cause of death in 27 of the patients, 10 with CAP having an indirect role with major contribution, 9 with CAP having an indirect role with minor contribution, and 6 with CAP having no role in death.

Do-not-resuscitate orders were present at the time of death for 21 of the patients.

Forty-five of the patients were admitted to an ICU, with 37 dying in the ICU. The eight patients who died on the ward after transfer out of the ICU had end-of-life limitations of care in place.

The researchers noted that the number of patients dying in the ICU was greater in the United States, possibly because in Europe fewer patients are admitted to an ICU.

“This discrepancy likely reflects cultural differences between the U.S. and Europe in the role of intensive care for patients with advanced age and/or advanced comorbid conditions,” they noted.

Overall, the physician review panel identified nine patients who had a lapse in quality of in-hospital CAP care, with four of the deaths potentially linked to this lapse in care.

However, two of the patients had end-of-life limitations of care in place, which according to the authors meant that “only two patients undergoing full medical treatment without end-of-life limitations of care had an identified lapse in quality of in-hospital pneumonia care potentially contributing to in-hospital death, including one with a delay in antibiotics for over an hour in the presence of shock and one with initial antibiotics not consistent with IDSA/ATS guidelines.”

The research team concluded that most in-hospital deaths among adult patients admitted with CAP in their study would not have been preventable with higher quality in-hospital pneumonia care.

“Many of the in-hospital deaths among patients admitted with CAP occurred in older patients with severe comorbidities and end-of-life limitations in care,” they noted.

They said the influence of end-of-life limitations on care short of full palliation was an important finding, with all patients who died outside the ICU having end-of-life limitations in care.

“Current diagnostic related group (DRG) and international classification of diseases (ICD) coding systems do not have the necessary nuances to capture these limitations of care, yet they are clearly important factors in determining whether patients experience in-hospital death,” they added.

Dr. Waterer reported no conflicts. Two coauthors reported potential conflicts of interest in relation to consulting fees from several pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Waterer G. et al. CHEST 2018;154(3):628-35. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.05.021.