Randy Dotinga

LAS VEGAS – Ajita Prabhu, MD, is intrigued enough by robotic inguinal hernia surgery to study it extensively. Her verdict: In general, it’s just not ready for prime time.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

“Right now, I don’t think I have any compelling evidence to tell a laparoscopic surgeon with good surgical times and good outcomes to convert to robotic surgery,” said Dr. Prabhu, an associate professor of surgery at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, in a presentation the Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

According to Dr. Prabhu, the number of robotic inguinal hernia surgeries in the United States has shot up over the past 8 years, but research into the technique has remained sparse and retrospective.

“There’s not a lot out there,” she said. “If I stood here and went through every one of those studies detail by detail, I think I could do it in 15 minutes.”

It is true, she said, that robotic surgery has possible advantages, such as better ergonomics for surgeons and, perhaps, a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy. Still, she said, “for those of us who grew up on it [laparoscopy], it’s a lot less hassle for us to get in and get out and get the job done,” even though the technique can hard to both learn and teach.

Robotic surgery has some disadvantages too, she said. “We’re finding additional evidence that it adds OR [operating room] time, and it’s expensive.” She pointed to an analysis that determined the average total cost for robotic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is $5,517 versus $3,269 for laparoscopic procedures (P less than .001). The cost difference is driven by fixed costs, particularly medical device expenses (Surg Endosc. 2018 Dec 7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-06606-9).

Moving forward, she said, robotic inguinal hernia surgery should be tested so “we can make sure it’s actually better, not just cool. We need to be able to justify our utilization.”

To that end, a multicenter, randomized, controlled study is now comparing robotic with laparoscopic surgery in inguinal hernias with 50 patients in each group, Dr. Prabhu said. Her institution, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, is one of the centers in the study (www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02816658).

In an interview, Dr. Prabhu said the study just finished enrollment; publication is expected within the next few months.

Dr. Prabhu disclosed relationships with Intuitive Surgical (research support and honoraria), Bard Davol (honoraria) and Medtronic (advisory board).

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Ajita Prabhu, MD, is intrigued enough by robotic inguinal hernia surgery to study it extensively. Her verdict: In general, it’s just not ready for prime time.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

“Right now, I don’t think I have any compelling evidence to tell a laparoscopic surgeon with good surgical times and good outcomes to convert to robotic surgery,” said Dr. Prabhu, an associate professor of surgery at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, in a presentation the Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

According to Dr. Prabhu, the number of robotic inguinal hernia surgeries in the United States has shot up over the past 8 years, but research into the technique has remained sparse and retrospective.

“There’s not a lot out there,” she said. “If I stood here and went through every one of those studies detail by detail, I think I could do it in 15 minutes.”

It is true, she said, that robotic surgery has possible advantages, such as better ergonomics for surgeons and, perhaps, a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy. Still, she said, “for those of us who grew up on it [laparoscopy], it’s a lot less hassle for us to get in and get out and get the job done,” even though the technique can hard to both learn and teach.

Robotic surgery has some disadvantages too, she said. “We’re finding additional evidence that it adds OR [operating room] time, and it’s expensive.” She pointed to an analysis that determined the average total cost for robotic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is $5,517 versus $3,269 for laparoscopic procedures (P less than .001). The cost difference is driven by fixed costs, particularly medical device expenses (Surg Endosc. 2018 Dec 7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-06606-9).

Moving forward, she said, robotic inguinal hernia surgery should be tested so “we can make sure it’s actually better, not just cool. We need to be able to justify our utilization.”

To that end, a multicenter, randomized, controlled study is now comparing robotic with laparoscopic surgery in inguinal hernias with 50 patients in each group, Dr. Prabhu said. Her institution, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, is one of the centers in the study (www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02816658).

In an interview, Dr. Prabhu said the study just finished enrollment; publication is expected within the next few months.

Dr. Prabhu disclosed relationships with Intuitive Surgical (research support and honoraria), Bard Davol (honoraria) and Medtronic (advisory board).

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Ajita Prabhu, MD, is intrigued enough by robotic inguinal hernia surgery to study it extensively. Her verdict: In general, it’s just not ready for prime time.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

“Right now, I don’t think I have any compelling evidence to tell a laparoscopic surgeon with good surgical times and good outcomes to convert to robotic surgery,” said Dr. Prabhu, an associate professor of surgery at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, in a presentation the Annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Symposium by Global Academy for Medical Education.

According to Dr. Prabhu, the number of robotic inguinal hernia surgeries in the United States has shot up over the past 8 years, but research into the technique has remained sparse and retrospective.

“There’s not a lot out there,” she said. “If I stood here and went through every one of those studies detail by detail, I think I could do it in 15 minutes.”

It is true, she said, that robotic surgery has possible advantages, such as better ergonomics for surgeons and, perhaps, a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy. Still, she said, “for those of us who grew up on it [laparoscopy], it’s a lot less hassle for us to get in and get out and get the job done,” even though the technique can hard to both learn and teach.

Robotic surgery has some disadvantages too, she said. “We’re finding additional evidence that it adds OR [operating room] time, and it’s expensive.” She pointed to an analysis that determined the average total cost for robotic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is $5,517 versus $3,269 for laparoscopic procedures (P less than .001). The cost difference is driven by fixed costs, particularly medical device expenses (Surg Endosc. 2018 Dec 7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-06606-9).

Moving forward, she said, robotic inguinal hernia surgery should be tested so “we can make sure it’s actually better, not just cool. We need to be able to justify our utilization.”

To that end, a multicenter, randomized, controlled study is now comparing robotic with laparoscopic surgery in inguinal hernias with 50 patients in each group, Dr. Prabhu said. Her institution, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, is one of the centers in the study (www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02816658).

In an interview, Dr. Prabhu said the study just finished enrollment; publication is expected within the next few months.

Dr. Prabhu disclosed relationships with Intuitive Surgical (research support and honoraria), Bard Davol (honoraria) and Medtronic (advisory board).

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

SAN DIEGO – Patients who develop sepsis in the hospital appear to be in greater risk for mortality than those who bring it with them, a new study suggests. Patients with hospital-onset sepsis were twice as likely to die as those infected in the outside world.

MDedge News/Randy Dotinga

“There could be some differences in quality of care that explains the difference in mortality,” said study lead author Chanu Rhee, MD, assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a presentation about the findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

In an interview, Dr. Rhee said researchers launched the study to gain a greater understanding of the epidemiology of sepsis in the hospital. They relied on a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of sepsis that is “enhancing the consistency of surveillance across hospitals and allowing more precise differentiation between hospital-onset versus community-onset sepsis.”

The study authors retrospectively tracked more than 2.2 million patients who were treated at 136 U.S. hospitals from 2009 to 2015. In general, hospital-onset sepsis was defined as patients who had a blood culture, initial antibiotic therapy, and organ dysfunction on their third day in the hospital or later.*

Of the patients, 83,600 had community-onset sepsis and 11,500 had hospital-onset sepsis. Those with sepsis were more likely to be men and have comorbidities such as cancer, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and renal disease.

Patients with hospital-onset sepsis had longer median lengths of stay (19 days) than the community-onset group (8 days) and the no-sepsis group (4 days). The hospital-onset group also had a greater likelihood of ICU admission (61%) than the community-onset (44%) and no-sepsis (9%) groups.

About 34% of those with hospital-onset sepsis died, compared with 17% of the community-onset group and 2% of the patients who didn’t have sepsis. After adjustment, those with hospital-onset sepsis were still more likely to have died (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.2).

“Other studies have suggested that there may be delays in the recognition and care of patients who develop sepsis in the hospital as opposed to presenting to the hospital with sepsis,” Dr. Rhee said. “It is also possible that hospital-onset sepsis tends to be caused by organisms that are more virulent and resistant to antibiotics.”

Overall, he said, “our findings underscore the importance of targeting hospital-onset sepsis with surveillance, prevention, and quality improvement efforts.”

The study was funded by the CDC and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. CCC48, Abstract 29.

*Correction, 3/19/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the definition of sepsis.

SAN DIEGO – Patients who develop sepsis in the hospital appear to be in greater risk for mortality than those who bring it with them, a new study suggests. Patients with hospital-onset sepsis were twice as likely to die as those infected in the outside world.

MDedge News/Randy Dotinga

“There could be some differences in quality of care that explains the difference in mortality,” said study lead author Chanu Rhee, MD, assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a presentation about the findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

In an interview, Dr. Rhee said researchers launched the study to gain a greater understanding of the epidemiology of sepsis in the hospital. They relied on a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of sepsis that is “enhancing the consistency of surveillance across hospitals and allowing more precise differentiation between hospital-onset versus community-onset sepsis.”

The study authors retrospectively tracked more than 2.2 million patients who were treated at 136 U.S. hospitals from 2009 to 2015. In general, hospital-onset sepsis was defined as patients who had a blood culture, initial antibiotic therapy, and organ dysfunction on their third day in the hospital or later.*

Of the patients, 83,600 had community-onset sepsis and 11,500 had hospital-onset sepsis. Those with sepsis were more likely to be men and have comorbidities such as cancer, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and renal disease.

Patients with hospital-onset sepsis had longer median lengths of stay (19 days) than the community-onset group (8 days) and the no-sepsis group (4 days). The hospital-onset group also had a greater likelihood of ICU admission (61%) than the community-onset (44%) and no-sepsis (9%) groups.

About 34% of those with hospital-onset sepsis died, compared with 17% of the community-onset group and 2% of the patients who didn’t have sepsis. After adjustment, those with hospital-onset sepsis were still more likely to have died (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.2).

“Other studies have suggested that there may be delays in the recognition and care of patients who develop sepsis in the hospital as opposed to presenting to the hospital with sepsis,” Dr. Rhee said. “It is also possible that hospital-onset sepsis tends to be caused by organisms that are more virulent and resistant to antibiotics.”

Overall, he said, “our findings underscore the importance of targeting hospital-onset sepsis with surveillance, prevention, and quality improvement efforts.”

The study was funded by the CDC and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. CCC48, Abstract 29.

*Correction, 3/19/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the definition of sepsis.

SAN DIEGO – Patients who develop sepsis in the hospital appear to be in greater risk for mortality than those who bring it with them, a new study suggests. Patients with hospital-onset sepsis were twice as likely to die as those infected in the outside world.

MDedge News/Randy Dotinga

“There could be some differences in quality of care that explains the difference in mortality,” said study lead author Chanu Rhee, MD, assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, in a presentation about the findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

In an interview, Dr. Rhee said researchers launched the study to gain a greater understanding of the epidemiology of sepsis in the hospital. They relied on a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition of sepsis that is “enhancing the consistency of surveillance across hospitals and allowing more precise differentiation between hospital-onset versus community-onset sepsis.”

The study authors retrospectively tracked more than 2.2 million patients who were treated at 136 U.S. hospitals from 2009 to 2015. In general, hospital-onset sepsis was defined as patients who had a blood culture, initial antibiotic therapy, and organ dysfunction on their third day in the hospital or later.*

Of the patients, 83,600 had community-onset sepsis and 11,500 had hospital-onset sepsis. Those with sepsis were more likely to be men and have comorbidities such as cancer, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and renal disease.

Patients with hospital-onset sepsis had longer median lengths of stay (19 days) than the community-onset group (8 days) and the no-sepsis group (4 days). The hospital-onset group also had a greater likelihood of ICU admission (61%) than the community-onset (44%) and no-sepsis (9%) groups.

About 34% of those with hospital-onset sepsis died, compared with 17% of the community-onset group and 2% of the patients who didn’t have sepsis. After adjustment, those with hospital-onset sepsis were still more likely to have died (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-2.2).

“Other studies have suggested that there may be delays in the recognition and care of patients who develop sepsis in the hospital as opposed to presenting to the hospital with sepsis,” Dr. Rhee said. “It is also possible that hospital-onset sepsis tends to be caused by organisms that are more virulent and resistant to antibiotics.”

Overall, he said, “our findings underscore the importance of targeting hospital-onset sepsis with surveillance, prevention, and quality improvement efforts.”

The study was funded by the CDC and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. CCC48, Abstract 29.

*Correction, 3/19/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the definition of sepsis.

SAN DIEGO – North Carolina health care workers often failed to provide best-practice follow-up to patients who were released after hospitalization for sepsis, a small study has found. There may be a cost to this gap: Patients who received recommended postsepsis care were less likely to die or be readmitted within 90 days.

“It’s disappointing to see that we are not providing these seemingly common-sense care processes to our sepsis patients at discharge,” said study lead author Stephanie Parks Taylor, MD, of Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “We need to develop and implement strategies to improve outcomes for sepsis patients, not just while they are in the hospital, but after discharge as well.”

A 2017 report estimated that 1.7 million adults were hospitalized for sepsis in the United States in 2014, and 270,000 died (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1241-9). Age-adjusted sepsis death rates in the United States are highest in states in the Eastern and Southern regions, a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested; North Carolina has the 32nd-worst sepsis death rate in the country (12.4 deaths per 100,000 population).

Dr. Taylor said some recent news about sepsis is promising. “We’ve seen decreasing mortality rates from initiatives that improve the early detection of sepsis and rapid delivery of antibiotics, fluids, and other treatment. However, there is growing evidence that patients who survive an episode of sepsis face residual health deficits. Many sepsis survivors are left with new functional, cognitive, or mental health declines or worsening of their underlying comorbidities. Unfortunately, these patients have high rates of mortality and hospital readmission that persist for multiple years after hospitalization.”

Indeed, a 2013 report linked sepsis to significantly higher mortality risk over 5 years, after accounting for comorbidities. Postsepsis patients were 13 times more likely to die over the first year after hospitalization than counterparts who didn’t have sepsis (BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004283).

For the new study, Dr. Taylor said, “we aimed to evaluate current care practices with the hope to identify a postsepsis management strategy that could help nudge these patients towards a more meaningful recovery.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked a random sample of 100 patients (median age, 63 years), who were discharged following an admission for sepsis in 2017. They were treated at eight acute care hospitals in western and central North Carolina and hospitalized for a median of 5 days; 75 were discharged to home (17 received home health services there), 17 went to skilled nursing or long-term care facilities, and 8 went to hospice or another location.

The researchers analyzed whether the patients received four kinds of postsepsis care within 90 days, as recommended by a 2018 review: screening for common functional impairments (53/100 patients received this screening); adjustment of medications as needed following discharge (53/100 patients); monitoring for common and preventable causes for health deterioration, such as infection, chronic lung disease, or heart failure exacerbation (37/100); and assessment for palliative care (25/100 patients) (JAMA. 2018;319[1]:62-75).

Within 90 days of discharge, 34 patients were readmitted and 17 died. The 32 patients who received at least two recommended kinds of postsepsis care were less likely to be readmitted or die (9/32) than those who got zero or one recommended kind of care (34/68; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence ratio, 0.09-0.82).

In an interview, study coauthor Marc Kowalkowski, PhD, associate professor with Atrium Health’s Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said he was hesitant to only allocate blame to hospitals or outpatient providers. “Transition out of the hospital is an extremely complex event, involving often fragmented care settings, and sepsis patients tend to be more complicated than other patients. It probably makes sense to provide an added layer of support during the transition out of the hospital for patients who are at high risk for poor outcomes.”

Overall, the findings are “a call for clinicians to realize sepsis is more than just an acute illness. The combination of a growing number of sepsis survivors and the increased health problems following an episode of sepsis creates an urgent public health challenge,” Dr. Taylor said.

Is more home health an important part of a solution? It may be helpful, Dr. Taylor said, but “our data suggest that there really needs to be better coordination to bridge between the inpatient and outpatient transition. We are currently conducting a randomized study to investigate whether these types of care processes can be delivered effectively through a nurse navigator to improve patient outcomes.”

Fortunately, she said, the findings suggest “we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to work on implementation of strategies for care processes that we are already familiar with.”

No funding was reported. None of the study authors reported relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Taylor SP et al. CCC48, Abstract 1320.

SAN DIEGO – North Carolina health care workers often failed to provide best-practice follow-up to patients who were released after hospitalization for sepsis, a small study has found. There may be a cost to this gap: Patients who received recommended postsepsis care were less likely to die or be readmitted within 90 days.

“It’s disappointing to see that we are not providing these seemingly common-sense care processes to our sepsis patients at discharge,” said study lead author Stephanie Parks Taylor, MD, of Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “We need to develop and implement strategies to improve outcomes for sepsis patients, not just while they are in the hospital, but after discharge as well.”

A 2017 report estimated that 1.7 million adults were hospitalized for sepsis in the United States in 2014, and 270,000 died (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1241-9). Age-adjusted sepsis death rates in the United States are highest in states in the Eastern and Southern regions, a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested; North Carolina has the 32nd-worst sepsis death rate in the country (12.4 deaths per 100,000 population).

Dr. Taylor said some recent news about sepsis is promising. “We’ve seen decreasing mortality rates from initiatives that improve the early detection of sepsis and rapid delivery of antibiotics, fluids, and other treatment. However, there is growing evidence that patients who survive an episode of sepsis face residual health deficits. Many sepsis survivors are left with new functional, cognitive, or mental health declines or worsening of their underlying comorbidities. Unfortunately, these patients have high rates of mortality and hospital readmission that persist for multiple years after hospitalization.”

Indeed, a 2013 report linked sepsis to significantly higher mortality risk over 5 years, after accounting for comorbidities. Postsepsis patients were 13 times more likely to die over the first year after hospitalization than counterparts who didn’t have sepsis (BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004283).

For the new study, Dr. Taylor said, “we aimed to evaluate current care practices with the hope to identify a postsepsis management strategy that could help nudge these patients towards a more meaningful recovery.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked a random sample of 100 patients (median age, 63 years), who were discharged following an admission for sepsis in 2017. They were treated at eight acute care hospitals in western and central North Carolina and hospitalized for a median of 5 days; 75 were discharged to home (17 received home health services there), 17 went to skilled nursing or long-term care facilities, and 8 went to hospice or another location.

The researchers analyzed whether the patients received four kinds of postsepsis care within 90 days, as recommended by a 2018 review: screening for common functional impairments (53/100 patients received this screening); adjustment of medications as needed following discharge (53/100 patients); monitoring for common and preventable causes for health deterioration, such as infection, chronic lung disease, or heart failure exacerbation (37/100); and assessment for palliative care (25/100 patients) (JAMA. 2018;319[1]:62-75).

Within 90 days of discharge, 34 patients were readmitted and 17 died. The 32 patients who received at least two recommended kinds of postsepsis care were less likely to be readmitted or die (9/32) than those who got zero or one recommended kind of care (34/68; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence ratio, 0.09-0.82).

In an interview, study coauthor Marc Kowalkowski, PhD, associate professor with Atrium Health’s Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said he was hesitant to only allocate blame to hospitals or outpatient providers. “Transition out of the hospital is an extremely complex event, involving often fragmented care settings, and sepsis patients tend to be more complicated than other patients. It probably makes sense to provide an added layer of support during the transition out of the hospital for patients who are at high risk for poor outcomes.”

Overall, the findings are “a call for clinicians to realize sepsis is more than just an acute illness. The combination of a growing number of sepsis survivors and the increased health problems following an episode of sepsis creates an urgent public health challenge,” Dr. Taylor said.

Is more home health an important part of a solution? It may be helpful, Dr. Taylor said, but “our data suggest that there really needs to be better coordination to bridge between the inpatient and outpatient transition. We are currently conducting a randomized study to investigate whether these types of care processes can be delivered effectively through a nurse navigator to improve patient outcomes.”

Fortunately, she said, the findings suggest “we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to work on implementation of strategies for care processes that we are already familiar with.”

No funding was reported. None of the study authors reported relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Taylor SP et al. CCC48, Abstract 1320.

SAN DIEGO – North Carolina health care workers often failed to provide best-practice follow-up to patients who were released after hospitalization for sepsis, a small study has found. There may be a cost to this gap: Patients who received recommended postsepsis care were less likely to die or be readmitted within 90 days.

“It’s disappointing to see that we are not providing these seemingly common-sense care processes to our sepsis patients at discharge,” said study lead author Stephanie Parks Taylor, MD, of Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte, in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “We need to develop and implement strategies to improve outcomes for sepsis patients, not just while they are in the hospital, but after discharge as well.”

A 2017 report estimated that 1.7 million adults were hospitalized for sepsis in the United States in 2014, and 270,000 died (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1241-9). Age-adjusted sepsis death rates in the United States are highest in states in the Eastern and Southern regions, a 2017 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggested; North Carolina has the 32nd-worst sepsis death rate in the country (12.4 deaths per 100,000 population).

Dr. Taylor said some recent news about sepsis is promising. “We’ve seen decreasing mortality rates from initiatives that improve the early detection of sepsis and rapid delivery of antibiotics, fluids, and other treatment. However, there is growing evidence that patients who survive an episode of sepsis face residual health deficits. Many sepsis survivors are left with new functional, cognitive, or mental health declines or worsening of their underlying comorbidities. Unfortunately, these patients have high rates of mortality and hospital readmission that persist for multiple years after hospitalization.”

Indeed, a 2013 report linked sepsis to significantly higher mortality risk over 5 years, after accounting for comorbidities. Postsepsis patients were 13 times more likely to die over the first year after hospitalization than counterparts who didn’t have sepsis (BMJ Open. 2014;4:e004283).

For the new study, Dr. Taylor said, “we aimed to evaluate current care practices with the hope to identify a postsepsis management strategy that could help nudge these patients towards a more meaningful recovery.”

The researchers retrospectively tracked a random sample of 100 patients (median age, 63 years), who were discharged following an admission for sepsis in 2017. They were treated at eight acute care hospitals in western and central North Carolina and hospitalized for a median of 5 days; 75 were discharged to home (17 received home health services there), 17 went to skilled nursing or long-term care facilities, and 8 went to hospice or another location.

The researchers analyzed whether the patients received four kinds of postsepsis care within 90 days, as recommended by a 2018 review: screening for common functional impairments (53/100 patients received this screening); adjustment of medications as needed following discharge (53/100 patients); monitoring for common and preventable causes for health deterioration, such as infection, chronic lung disease, or heart failure exacerbation (37/100); and assessment for palliative care (25/100 patients) (JAMA. 2018;319[1]:62-75).

Within 90 days of discharge, 34 patients were readmitted and 17 died. The 32 patients who received at least two recommended kinds of postsepsis care were less likely to be readmitted or die (9/32) than those who got zero or one recommended kind of care (34/68; odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence ratio, 0.09-0.82).

In an interview, study coauthor Marc Kowalkowski, PhD, associate professor with Atrium Health’s Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, said he was hesitant to only allocate blame to hospitals or outpatient providers. “Transition out of the hospital is an extremely complex event, involving often fragmented care settings, and sepsis patients tend to be more complicated than other patients. It probably makes sense to provide an added layer of support during the transition out of the hospital for patients who are at high risk for poor outcomes.”

Overall, the findings are “a call for clinicians to realize sepsis is more than just an acute illness. The combination of a growing number of sepsis survivors and the increased health problems following an episode of sepsis creates an urgent public health challenge,” Dr. Taylor said.

Is more home health an important part of a solution? It may be helpful, Dr. Taylor said, but “our data suggest that there really needs to be better coordination to bridge between the inpatient and outpatient transition. We are currently conducting a randomized study to investigate whether these types of care processes can be delivered effectively through a nurse navigator to improve patient outcomes.”

Fortunately, she said, the findings suggest “we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just have to work on implementation of strategies for care processes that we are already familiar with.”

No funding was reported. None of the study authors reported relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Taylor SP et al. CCC48, Abstract 1320.

SAN DIEGO – Powerful antibiotics come first to mind when hospitalized patients have sepsis, but a critical care pulmonology specialist urged colleagues to consider another treatment – heavy intravenous doses of vitamin C.

“There is evidence supporting benefit, and ample evidence supporting safety,” Michael H. Hooper, MD, who practices in Norfolk, Va., said in a pro-and-con debate over the use of vitamin C in sepsis at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Dr. Hooper’s debate opponent countered by noting the lack of quality research into vitamin C in sepsis and declared that its time has not yet come. “We need more data to know the safety of this drug,” said Andre Kalil, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of Transplant Infectious Diseases at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Hooper was part of a member of a team led by Paul E. Marik, MD, FCCP, of Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, that made waves in 2017 with a study in Chest suggesting IV vitamin C has tremendous potential as a treatment for sepsis (Chest. 2017 Jun;151[6]:1229-38).

The retrospective study compared two groups of 47 patients with sepsis – a control group and a group that received treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine. Remarkably, the team found that 9% (4 of 47) of those in the treatment group died in the hospital, compared with 40% (19 of 47) in the control group (P less than .001).

The findings make sense, Dr. Hooper said, in light of the fact that “our patients are remarkably deficient” in vitamin C. He pointed to a 2017 study that found nearly 40% of 24 patients with septic shock were deficient in vitamin C – despite getting recommended enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition or both – compared with 25% of patients who were not septic. The study authors believe the difference is probably due to “increased metabolism due to the enhanced inflammatory response observed in septic shock” (Crit Care. 2017 Dec 11;21[1]:300).

“We’re dealing with a population of patients who need some sort of repletion of this vitamin,” Dr. Hooper said.

Why not try oral administration of vitamin C? “Oral administration at regular doses doesn’t work,” he said. “If you have normal volunteers who are made deficient, then you administer the recommended allowance, it takes days or weeks to return levels to normal.”

Dr. Hooper added that the goal of vitamin C therapy isn’t simply to restore proper levels in plasma. In addition, he said, “we’re trying to restore levels in crucial organs.”

He said the cost of treatment with IV vitamin C is low, and no serious adverse events have been seen in studies of the vitamin’s use in critical care.

In his comments at the debate, Dr. Kalil pointed to several weaknesses in the 2017 study of vitamin C in sepsis. According to him, it had many problems, including a sample size that lacked statistical power and imbalances in the two groups. He raised concerns about the study in a 2017 letter published in Chest titled “Vitamin C Is Not Ready for Prime Time in Sepsis but a Solution Is Close,” noting that the control group was sicker and none of those patients had their vitamin C levels measured (Chest. 2017 Sep;152[3]:676).

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

He added that “acute renal failure is associated with high doses of vitamin C.”

As of July 2018, several clinical trials into vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine for the treatment of septic shock were underway or planned, according to a report that described the current randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter Ascorbic Acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine in Sepsis (ACTS) trial in the United States. The report notes that “robust evidence” for this approach is lacking, although “the potential effectiveness of this medication combination is rooted in biologic plausibility and supported by small clinical trials of the various individual components.” (Crit Care. 2018;22:283)

Dr. Hooper is an executive committee member and principal investigator with the Vitamin C, Thiamine And Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) study. Dr. Kalil reports no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Powerful antibiotics come first to mind when hospitalized patients have sepsis, but a critical care pulmonology specialist urged colleagues to consider another treatment – heavy intravenous doses of vitamin C.

“There is evidence supporting benefit, and ample evidence supporting safety,” Michael H. Hooper, MD, who practices in Norfolk, Va., said in a pro-and-con debate over the use of vitamin C in sepsis at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Dr. Hooper’s debate opponent countered by noting the lack of quality research into vitamin C in sepsis and declared that its time has not yet come. “We need more data to know the safety of this drug,” said Andre Kalil, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of Transplant Infectious Diseases at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Hooper was part of a member of a team led by Paul E. Marik, MD, FCCP, of Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, that made waves in 2017 with a study in Chest suggesting IV vitamin C has tremendous potential as a treatment for sepsis (Chest. 2017 Jun;151[6]:1229-38).

The retrospective study compared two groups of 47 patients with sepsis – a control group and a group that received treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine. Remarkably, the team found that 9% (4 of 47) of those in the treatment group died in the hospital, compared with 40% (19 of 47) in the control group (P less than .001).

The findings make sense, Dr. Hooper said, in light of the fact that “our patients are remarkably deficient” in vitamin C. He pointed to a 2017 study that found nearly 40% of 24 patients with septic shock were deficient in vitamin C – despite getting recommended enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition or both – compared with 25% of patients who were not septic. The study authors believe the difference is probably due to “increased metabolism due to the enhanced inflammatory response observed in septic shock” (Crit Care. 2017 Dec 11;21[1]:300).

“We’re dealing with a population of patients who need some sort of repletion of this vitamin,” Dr. Hooper said.

Why not try oral administration of vitamin C? “Oral administration at regular doses doesn’t work,” he said. “If you have normal volunteers who are made deficient, then you administer the recommended allowance, it takes days or weeks to return levels to normal.”

Dr. Hooper added that the goal of vitamin C therapy isn’t simply to restore proper levels in plasma. In addition, he said, “we’re trying to restore levels in crucial organs.”

He said the cost of treatment with IV vitamin C is low, and no serious adverse events have been seen in studies of the vitamin’s use in critical care.

In his comments at the debate, Dr. Kalil pointed to several weaknesses in the 2017 study of vitamin C in sepsis. According to him, it had many problems, including a sample size that lacked statistical power and imbalances in the two groups. He raised concerns about the study in a 2017 letter published in Chest titled “Vitamin C Is Not Ready for Prime Time in Sepsis but a Solution Is Close,” noting that the control group was sicker and none of those patients had their vitamin C levels measured (Chest. 2017 Sep;152[3]:676).

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

He added that “acute renal failure is associated with high doses of vitamin C.”

As of July 2018, several clinical trials into vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine for the treatment of septic shock were underway or planned, according to a report that described the current randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter Ascorbic Acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine in Sepsis (ACTS) trial in the United States. The report notes that “robust evidence” for this approach is lacking, although “the potential effectiveness of this medication combination is rooted in biologic plausibility and supported by small clinical trials of the various individual components.” (Crit Care. 2018;22:283)

Dr. Hooper is an executive committee member and principal investigator with the Vitamin C, Thiamine And Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) study. Dr. Kalil reports no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Powerful antibiotics come first to mind when hospitalized patients have sepsis, but a critical care pulmonology specialist urged colleagues to consider another treatment – heavy intravenous doses of vitamin C.

“There is evidence supporting benefit, and ample evidence supporting safety,” Michael H. Hooper, MD, who practices in Norfolk, Va., said in a pro-and-con debate over the use of vitamin C in sepsis at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Dr. Hooper’s debate opponent countered by noting the lack of quality research into vitamin C in sepsis and declared that its time has not yet come. “We need more data to know the safety of this drug,” said Andre Kalil, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of Transplant Infectious Diseases at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Hooper was part of a member of a team led by Paul E. Marik, MD, FCCP, of Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, that made waves in 2017 with a study in Chest suggesting IV vitamin C has tremendous potential as a treatment for sepsis (Chest. 2017 Jun;151[6]:1229-38).

The retrospective study compared two groups of 47 patients with sepsis – a control group and a group that received treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine. Remarkably, the team found that 9% (4 of 47) of those in the treatment group died in the hospital, compared with 40% (19 of 47) in the control group (P less than .001).

The findings make sense, Dr. Hooper said, in light of the fact that “our patients are remarkably deficient” in vitamin C. He pointed to a 2017 study that found nearly 40% of 24 patients with septic shock were deficient in vitamin C – despite getting recommended enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition or both – compared with 25% of patients who were not septic. The study authors believe the difference is probably due to “increased metabolism due to the enhanced inflammatory response observed in septic shock” (Crit Care. 2017 Dec 11;21[1]:300).

“We’re dealing with a population of patients who need some sort of repletion of this vitamin,” Dr. Hooper said.

Why not try oral administration of vitamin C? “Oral administration at regular doses doesn’t work,” he said. “If you have normal volunteers who are made deficient, then you administer the recommended allowance, it takes days or weeks to return levels to normal.”

Dr. Hooper added that the goal of vitamin C therapy isn’t simply to restore proper levels in plasma. In addition, he said, “we’re trying to restore levels in crucial organs.”

He said the cost of treatment with IV vitamin C is low, and no serious adverse events have been seen in studies of the vitamin’s use in critical care.

In his comments at the debate, Dr. Kalil pointed to several weaknesses in the 2017 study of vitamin C in sepsis. According to him, it had many problems, including a sample size that lacked statistical power and imbalances in the two groups. He raised concerns about the study in a 2017 letter published in Chest titled “Vitamin C Is Not Ready for Prime Time in Sepsis but a Solution Is Close,” noting that the control group was sicker and none of those patients had their vitamin C levels measured (Chest. 2017 Sep;152[3]:676).

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

He added that “acute renal failure is associated with high doses of vitamin C.”

As of July 2018, several clinical trials into vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine for the treatment of septic shock were underway or planned, according to a report that described the current randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter Ascorbic Acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine in Sepsis (ACTS) trial in the United States. The report notes that “robust evidence” for this approach is lacking, although “the potential effectiveness of this medication combination is rooted in biologic plausibility and supported by small clinical trials of the various individual components.” (Crit Care. 2018;22:283)

Dr. Hooper is an executive committee member and principal investigator with the Vitamin C, Thiamine And Steroids in Sepsis (VICTAS) study. Dr. Kalil reports no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Biologics have dramatically improved the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD), an influential gastroenterologist told colleagues, but there is still no clear evidence suggesting which ones are best as first-line treatments.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

When it comes to making a choice, insurer policies may play a role, said Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD, lead author of the American College of Gastroenterology’s 2018 treatment guidelines for CD. Otherwise, “you’re left with clinical factors, your own judgment, and some indirect data,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke about the guidelines in a presentation at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress – a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Lichtenstein spoke about recommendations regarding treatment of CD in several areas. The following is a summary of some points he made:

Diagnosis: Some tests aren’t recommended

Classic signs and symptoms of CD include abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, weight loss, failure to grow, anemia, and manifestations outside the intestines. Fecal calprotectin testing is recommended to differentiate inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome; genetic testing and serologic markers are not recommended for diagnosis.

Ileocolonoscopy is recommended for diagnosis and provides details about severity. Several factors suggest higher risk of progressive disease: Young age at diagnosis, initial extensive bowel involvement, perianal/severe rectal disease, and penetrating or stenosing phenotype at diagnosis.

Research is hinting that visceral adiposity may be a risk factor too, Dr. Lichtenstein said, adding that “the greater the number of poor prognostic factors, the worse the likelihood of needing a colectomy.”

Focus of treatment: Don’t just consider symptoms

For patients with moderate to severe disease, guidelines now suggest that physicians not just focus on symptoms but also consider endoscopic signs of response and healing. Guidelines also recommend paying attention to quality of life and levels of stress, anxiety, and depression.

Drug therapy: Biologics stand apart

Budesonide is appropriate for induction therapy in mild to moderate CD. There are many possible treatments for moderate to severe disease, including steroids for induction and thiopurines or methotrexate for maintenance

But biologics stand apart, Dr. Lichtenstein said, noting that “they have really been the mainstay of the treatment of our moderate to severe patients.”

Still, he cautioned that tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are linked to a variety of adverse effects, including demyelination, heart failure, auto-immunity, infusion reactions, immunogenicity, infection, bone marrow suppression, and cancer. Specifically, the risk of lymphoma and melanoma may go up, although the absolute risk is low.

He added that a third of patients will not respond to TNF inhibitors, and about half of those who do respond may stop responding after a few years.

Among newer drugs, vedolizumab (Entyvio) is useful as an induction and maintenance drug in CD. “We recognize it has a slow onset of action,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Waiting is part of what one needs to do. Those who had prior anti-TNF failures are less likely to respond than those who have been anti-TNF naive.”

The drug has a favorable safety profile, he said.

Ustekinumab (Stelara) also has a favorable safety profile with very low infection risk, although Dr. Lichtenstein said he expects that the drug will be linked to a small increased risk of cancer. “Perhaps I’ll be wrong,” he said, “but time will tell.”

So which biologic is best? Direct head-to-head trials are lacking, Dr. Lichtenstein said. However, a 2018 systematic review and network meta-analysis analyzed clinical trial data and came to these conclusions: Infliximab (Remicade) and adalimumab (Humira) are best for induction of remission in biologic-naive patients; adalimumab and ustekinumab are best for induction of remission in TNF inhibitor–exposed patients; adalimumab and infliximab are best for maintenance of remission; and ustekinumab and infliximab are best in terms of lowest risk of adverse events or infection (Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Aug;48[4]:394-409).

Dr. Lichtenstein reports many disclosures with multiple drugmakers, including both grants/research support and consulting relationships with Celgene, Janssen Biotech, Salix, Shire, UCB and Warner Chilcott.

LAS VEGAS – Biologics have dramatically improved the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD), an influential gastroenterologist told colleagues, but there is still no clear evidence suggesting which ones are best as first-line treatments.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

When it comes to making a choice, insurer policies may play a role, said Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD, lead author of the American College of Gastroenterology’s 2018 treatment guidelines for CD. Otherwise, “you’re left with clinical factors, your own judgment, and some indirect data,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke about the guidelines in a presentation at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress – a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Lichtenstein spoke about recommendations regarding treatment of CD in several areas. The following is a summary of some points he made:

Diagnosis: Some tests aren’t recommended

Classic signs and symptoms of CD include abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, weight loss, failure to grow, anemia, and manifestations outside the intestines. Fecal calprotectin testing is recommended to differentiate inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome; genetic testing and serologic markers are not recommended for diagnosis.

Ileocolonoscopy is recommended for diagnosis and provides details about severity. Several factors suggest higher risk of progressive disease: Young age at diagnosis, initial extensive bowel involvement, perianal/severe rectal disease, and penetrating or stenosing phenotype at diagnosis.

Research is hinting that visceral adiposity may be a risk factor too, Dr. Lichtenstein said, adding that “the greater the number of poor prognostic factors, the worse the likelihood of needing a colectomy.”

Focus of treatment: Don’t just consider symptoms

For patients with moderate to severe disease, guidelines now suggest that physicians not just focus on symptoms but also consider endoscopic signs of response and healing. Guidelines also recommend paying attention to quality of life and levels of stress, anxiety, and depression.

Drug therapy: Biologics stand apart

Budesonide is appropriate for induction therapy in mild to moderate CD. There are many possible treatments for moderate to severe disease, including steroids for induction and thiopurines or methotrexate for maintenance

But biologics stand apart, Dr. Lichtenstein said, noting that “they have really been the mainstay of the treatment of our moderate to severe patients.”

Still, he cautioned that tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are linked to a variety of adverse effects, including demyelination, heart failure, auto-immunity, infusion reactions, immunogenicity, infection, bone marrow suppression, and cancer. Specifically, the risk of lymphoma and melanoma may go up, although the absolute risk is low.

He added that a third of patients will not respond to TNF inhibitors, and about half of those who do respond may stop responding after a few years.

Among newer drugs, vedolizumab (Entyvio) is useful as an induction and maintenance drug in CD. “We recognize it has a slow onset of action,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Waiting is part of what one needs to do. Those who had prior anti-TNF failures are less likely to respond than those who have been anti-TNF naive.”

The drug has a favorable safety profile, he said.

Ustekinumab (Stelara) also has a favorable safety profile with very low infection risk, although Dr. Lichtenstein said he expects that the drug will be linked to a small increased risk of cancer. “Perhaps I’ll be wrong,” he said, “but time will tell.”

So which biologic is best? Direct head-to-head trials are lacking, Dr. Lichtenstein said. However, a 2018 systematic review and network meta-analysis analyzed clinical trial data and came to these conclusions: Infliximab (Remicade) and adalimumab (Humira) are best for induction of remission in biologic-naive patients; adalimumab and ustekinumab are best for induction of remission in TNF inhibitor–exposed patients; adalimumab and infliximab are best for maintenance of remission; and ustekinumab and infliximab are best in terms of lowest risk of adverse events or infection (Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Aug;48[4]:394-409).

Dr. Lichtenstein reports many disclosures with multiple drugmakers, including both grants/research support and consulting relationships with Celgene, Janssen Biotech, Salix, Shire, UCB and Warner Chilcott.

LAS VEGAS – Biologics have dramatically improved the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD), an influential gastroenterologist told colleagues, but there is still no clear evidence suggesting which ones are best as first-line treatments.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

When it comes to making a choice, insurer policies may play a role, said Gary R. Lichtenstein, MD, lead author of the American College of Gastroenterology’s 2018 treatment guidelines for CD. Otherwise, “you’re left with clinical factors, your own judgment, and some indirect data,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke about the guidelines in a presentation at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress – a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Lichtenstein spoke about recommendations regarding treatment of CD in several areas. The following is a summary of some points he made:

Diagnosis: Some tests aren’t recommended

Classic signs and symptoms of CD include abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, weight loss, failure to grow, anemia, and manifestations outside the intestines. Fecal calprotectin testing is recommended to differentiate inflammatory bowel disease from irritable bowel syndrome; genetic testing and serologic markers are not recommended for diagnosis.

Ileocolonoscopy is recommended for diagnosis and provides details about severity. Several factors suggest higher risk of progressive disease: Young age at diagnosis, initial extensive bowel involvement, perianal/severe rectal disease, and penetrating or stenosing phenotype at diagnosis.

Research is hinting that visceral adiposity may be a risk factor too, Dr. Lichtenstein said, adding that “the greater the number of poor prognostic factors, the worse the likelihood of needing a colectomy.”

Focus of treatment: Don’t just consider symptoms

For patients with moderate to severe disease, guidelines now suggest that physicians not just focus on symptoms but also consider endoscopic signs of response and healing. Guidelines also recommend paying attention to quality of life and levels of stress, anxiety, and depression.

Drug therapy: Biologics stand apart

Budesonide is appropriate for induction therapy in mild to moderate CD. There are many possible treatments for moderate to severe disease, including steroids for induction and thiopurines or methotrexate for maintenance

But biologics stand apart, Dr. Lichtenstein said, noting that “they have really been the mainstay of the treatment of our moderate to severe patients.”

Still, he cautioned that tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are linked to a variety of adverse effects, including demyelination, heart failure, auto-immunity, infusion reactions, immunogenicity, infection, bone marrow suppression, and cancer. Specifically, the risk of lymphoma and melanoma may go up, although the absolute risk is low.

He added that a third of patients will not respond to TNF inhibitors, and about half of those who do respond may stop responding after a few years.

Among newer drugs, vedolizumab (Entyvio) is useful as an induction and maintenance drug in CD. “We recognize it has a slow onset of action,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Waiting is part of what one needs to do. Those who had prior anti-TNF failures are less likely to respond than those who have been anti-TNF naive.”

The drug has a favorable safety profile, he said.

Ustekinumab (Stelara) also has a favorable safety profile with very low infection risk, although Dr. Lichtenstein said he expects that the drug will be linked to a small increased risk of cancer. “Perhaps I’ll be wrong,” he said, “but time will tell.”

So which biologic is best? Direct head-to-head trials are lacking, Dr. Lichtenstein said. However, a 2018 systematic review and network meta-analysis analyzed clinical trial data and came to these conclusions: Infliximab (Remicade) and adalimumab (Humira) are best for induction of remission in biologic-naive patients; adalimumab and ustekinumab are best for induction of remission in TNF inhibitor–exposed patients; adalimumab and infliximab are best for maintenance of remission; and ustekinumab and infliximab are best in terms of lowest risk of adverse events or infection (Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Aug;48[4]:394-409).

Dr. Lichtenstein reports many disclosures with multiple drugmakers, including both grants/research support and consulting relationships with Celgene, Janssen Biotech, Salix, Shire, UCB and Warner Chilcott.

SAN DIEGO – Does rudeness from a colleague prevent physicians from noticing a diagnostic error and challenging it? A new study suggests it might not, at least in the context of hand-offs from dismissive and insulting fellow doctors.

Instead, a simulation found that experience seems to be the key factor in giving physicians the guts – or the awareness – to change course. Still, the findings hint that rudeness may still have a negative effect on one group – resident physicians.

“It appears that we are building resilience somewhere in training,” said study lead author Michael Avesar, MD, a pediatric critical care medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Dr. Avesar spoke in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The initial motivation of the study wasn’t to gain more understanding of rudeness in medicine. Instead, Dr. Avesar said, “We started off with trying to find ways to understand how physicians think during high-stakes decisions in stressful or time-limited situations. We wanted to see if people were able to challenge the momentum of diagnostic error. That’s when we learned more about the rudeness literature.”

Yes, it’s true: Researchers have devoted time to studying rudeness in medicine. After all, it’s quite common. A 2017 Israeli study in Pediatrics declared it’s “routinely experienced by medical teams.” That study, also based on simulations, determined that “rudeness has robust, deleterious effects on the performance of medical teams. Moreover, exposure to rudeness debilitated the very collaborative mechanisms recognized as essential for patient care and safety” (Pediatrics. 2017 Feb. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2305).

For the new study, Dr. Avesar and his colleagues ultimately decided to explore possible links between rudeness and diagnostic error. To explore the issue, they created a simulation of a hand-off of a pediatric patient from the operating team to the ICU.

In the simulation, the “physician” handing off the “patient” incorrectly noted a diagnosis of sepsis. In fact, the patient had cardiac tamponade.

The physician, played by an actor, was instructed to either act in a neutral fashion during the hand-off or be rude. But rudeness, it turns out, isn’t easy to define, even if we all think we know it when we see it.

“There’s a lot of debate as to what is ‘rude,’ ” Dr. Avesar said. The researchers settled on a level of rudeness that wasn’t “too mean” but was still inappropriate: It featured frequent interruptions during the hand-off, lack of eye contact, and abrupt departures. In some simulations, the actor insulted the colleagues of the recipient of the hand-off.

In other words, Dr. Avesar said, the actor was a jerk.

The researchers tested the “neutral” and “rude” hand-off scenarios in 41 simulations. The physicians who played the recipients of the hand-offs included 11 attendings, 14 fellows, and 16 residents.

Eighty-two percent of the attendings (9/11) challenged the diagnosis, as did 86% (12/14) of the fellows. Only 31% (5/16) of residents challenged the diagnosis; this difference from the other groups was statistically significant.

Half of the eight residents exposed to a “neutral” handoff challenged the correct diagnosis, while only 13% (1/8) of those who were treated rudely did. “While the P value was not significant, previous literature focused on residents supports this trend,” Dr. Avesar said.

It’s possible that certain residents gain the knowledge and experience to overcome rudeness over time, he said. That, he said, leads to an intriguing question: “Could we find out how resilience is learned and how to replicate it?”

Moving forward, he said, the team will try to figure out whether there’s a link between personality types and reactions to rudeness.

Eventually, he said, the team may test ways to reduce the effects of rudeness and boost critical thinking. “We see this as a long-term strategy to enhance medical education and patient safety,” he said.

No study funding is reported. Dr. Avesar reports no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Avesar M et al. Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):682, Abstract 1412.

SAN DIEGO – Does rudeness from a colleague prevent physicians from noticing a diagnostic error and challenging it? A new study suggests it might not, at least in the context of hand-offs from dismissive and insulting fellow doctors.

Instead, a simulation found that experience seems to be the key factor in giving physicians the guts – or the awareness – to change course. Still, the findings hint that rudeness may still have a negative effect on one group – resident physicians.

“It appears that we are building resilience somewhere in training,” said study lead author Michael Avesar, MD, a pediatric critical care medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Dr. Avesar spoke in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The initial motivation of the study wasn’t to gain more understanding of rudeness in medicine. Instead, Dr. Avesar said, “We started off with trying to find ways to understand how physicians think during high-stakes decisions in stressful or time-limited situations. We wanted to see if people were able to challenge the momentum of diagnostic error. That’s when we learned more about the rudeness literature.”

Yes, it’s true: Researchers have devoted time to studying rudeness in medicine. After all, it’s quite common. A 2017 Israeli study in Pediatrics declared it’s “routinely experienced by medical teams.” That study, also based on simulations, determined that “rudeness has robust, deleterious effects on the performance of medical teams. Moreover, exposure to rudeness debilitated the very collaborative mechanisms recognized as essential for patient care and safety” (Pediatrics. 2017 Feb. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2305).

For the new study, Dr. Avesar and his colleagues ultimately decided to explore possible links between rudeness and diagnostic error. To explore the issue, they created a simulation of a hand-off of a pediatric patient from the operating team to the ICU.

In the simulation, the “physician” handing off the “patient” incorrectly noted a diagnosis of sepsis. In fact, the patient had cardiac tamponade.

The physician, played by an actor, was instructed to either act in a neutral fashion during the hand-off or be rude. But rudeness, it turns out, isn’t easy to define, even if we all think we know it when we see it.

“There’s a lot of debate as to what is ‘rude,’ ” Dr. Avesar said. The researchers settled on a level of rudeness that wasn’t “too mean” but was still inappropriate: It featured frequent interruptions during the hand-off, lack of eye contact, and abrupt departures. In some simulations, the actor insulted the colleagues of the recipient of the hand-off.

In other words, Dr. Avesar said, the actor was a jerk.

The researchers tested the “neutral” and “rude” hand-off scenarios in 41 simulations. The physicians who played the recipients of the hand-offs included 11 attendings, 14 fellows, and 16 residents.

Eighty-two percent of the attendings (9/11) challenged the diagnosis, as did 86% (12/14) of the fellows. Only 31% (5/16) of residents challenged the diagnosis; this difference from the other groups was statistically significant.

Half of the eight residents exposed to a “neutral” handoff challenged the correct diagnosis, while only 13% (1/8) of those who were treated rudely did. “While the P value was not significant, previous literature focused on residents supports this trend,” Dr. Avesar said.

It’s possible that certain residents gain the knowledge and experience to overcome rudeness over time, he said. That, he said, leads to an intriguing question: “Could we find out how resilience is learned and how to replicate it?”

Moving forward, he said, the team will try to figure out whether there’s a link between personality types and reactions to rudeness.

Eventually, he said, the team may test ways to reduce the effects of rudeness and boost critical thinking. “We see this as a long-term strategy to enhance medical education and patient safety,” he said.

No study funding is reported. Dr. Avesar reports no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Avesar M et al. Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):682, Abstract 1412.

SAN DIEGO – Does rudeness from a colleague prevent physicians from noticing a diagnostic error and challenging it? A new study suggests it might not, at least in the context of hand-offs from dismissive and insulting fellow doctors.

Instead, a simulation found that experience seems to be the key factor in giving physicians the guts – or the awareness – to change course. Still, the findings hint that rudeness may still have a negative effect on one group – resident physicians.

“It appears that we are building resilience somewhere in training,” said study lead author Michael Avesar, MD, a pediatric critical care medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

Dr. Avesar spoke in an interview following the presentation of the study findings at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The initial motivation of the study wasn’t to gain more understanding of rudeness in medicine. Instead, Dr. Avesar said, “We started off with trying to find ways to understand how physicians think during high-stakes decisions in stressful or time-limited situations. We wanted to see if people were able to challenge the momentum of diagnostic error. That’s when we learned more about the rudeness literature.”

Yes, it’s true: Researchers have devoted time to studying rudeness in medicine. After all, it’s quite common. A 2017 Israeli study in Pediatrics declared it’s “routinely experienced by medical teams.” That study, also based on simulations, determined that “rudeness has robust, deleterious effects on the performance of medical teams. Moreover, exposure to rudeness debilitated the very collaborative mechanisms recognized as essential for patient care and safety” (Pediatrics. 2017 Feb. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2305).

For the new study, Dr. Avesar and his colleagues ultimately decided to explore possible links between rudeness and diagnostic error. To explore the issue, they created a simulation of a hand-off of a pediatric patient from the operating team to the ICU.

In the simulation, the “physician” handing off the “patient” incorrectly noted a diagnosis of sepsis. In fact, the patient had cardiac tamponade.

The physician, played by an actor, was instructed to either act in a neutral fashion during the hand-off or be rude. But rudeness, it turns out, isn’t easy to define, even if we all think we know it when we see it.

“There’s a lot of debate as to what is ‘rude,’ ” Dr. Avesar said. The researchers settled on a level of rudeness that wasn’t “too mean” but was still inappropriate: It featured frequent interruptions during the hand-off, lack of eye contact, and abrupt departures. In some simulations, the actor insulted the colleagues of the recipient of the hand-off.

In other words, Dr. Avesar said, the actor was a jerk.

The researchers tested the “neutral” and “rude” hand-off scenarios in 41 simulations. The physicians who played the recipients of the hand-offs included 11 attendings, 14 fellows, and 16 residents.

Eighty-two percent of the attendings (9/11) challenged the diagnosis, as did 86% (12/14) of the fellows. Only 31% (5/16) of residents challenged the diagnosis; this difference from the other groups was statistically significant.

Half of the eight residents exposed to a “neutral” handoff challenged the correct diagnosis, while only 13% (1/8) of those who were treated rudely did. “While the P value was not significant, previous literature focused on residents supports this trend,” Dr. Avesar said.

It’s possible that certain residents gain the knowledge and experience to overcome rudeness over time, he said. That, he said, leads to an intriguing question: “Could we find out how resilience is learned and how to replicate it?”

Moving forward, he said, the team will try to figure out whether there’s a link between personality types and reactions to rudeness.

Eventually, he said, the team may test ways to reduce the effects of rudeness and boost critical thinking. “We see this as a long-term strategy to enhance medical education and patient safety,” he said.

No study funding is reported. Dr. Avesar reports no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Avesar M et al. Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):682, Abstract 1412.

Dehydrated human umbilical cord allograft may have benefit over alginate wound dressings as a treatment for chronic, nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), findings from an industry-funded, randomized controlled study suggest.

The findings “provide additional evidence of the safety and efficacy of dehydrated placental tissues,” wrote William Tettelbach, MD, and his colleagues. Their report is in International Wound Journal.

The burden of diabetic foot disease in the United States is immense. A 2014 study estimated that treatment of DFUs alone cost public and private insurers as much as $13 billion per year (Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):651-8).

MiMedx, which funded the new study, has developed a product called EpiCord to protect the DFU wound site. The product’s website describes it as a “unique, thick membrane derived from umbilical cord” that’s “minimally manipulated, dehydrated, [and] non-viable” (www.mimedx.com/epicord). The study authors noted that “immunogenicity of placental tissue lends credence to its use as an allograft material for difficult-to-heal wounds.”

For the new study, which was conducted from 2016 to 2018 and led by Dr. Tettelbach, an infectious disease specialist who is now an employee of MiMedx, the researchers enlisted 155 adult patients with stubborn DFUs at 11 centers in the United States.

All the ulcers had 30% or less wound area reduction after 14 days of standard care. The majority of patients (81%) were male; 63% were obese, 43% were smokers, and 17% had a prior amputation.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive a weekly application of EpiCord (n = 101) or treatment with an alginate wound dressing (n = 54) in addition to standard care. The percentage of patients whose wounds healed completely by 12 weeks later was higher in the study group than in those who were treated with alginate dressings (70% vs. 48%, respectively; P = .0089), per an intent-to-treat analysis.

The researchers also focused purely on patients who had received adequate debridement (107/155 ulcers, 69%). Of those ulcers, 64/67 (96%), in the study group healed completely at 12 weeks, compared with 26/40 (65%) of the alginate group (P less than .0001.)

The researchers did not notice any adverse effects related to either dressing.

According to the study, the findings regarding EpiCord are comparable with a sister study of a similar product by the same company that was tested in diabetic lower-extremity ulcers. That study, of a product called EpiFix, was published in the same issue of the journal (Int Wound J. 2019 Feb;16[1]:19-29).

“A thicker and more durable allograft such as EpiCord may be a good choice for implantation into deeper wounds and in situations where suturing the allograft in place is desired,” the authors wrote of the EpiCord study.

MiMedx provided research funding to all of the authors.

SOURCE: Tettelbach W et al. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):122-130. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12976.

Dehydrated human umbilical cord allograft may have benefit over alginate wound dressings as a treatment for chronic, nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), findings from an industry-funded, randomized controlled study suggest.

The findings “provide additional evidence of the safety and efficacy of dehydrated placental tissues,” wrote William Tettelbach, MD, and his colleagues. Their report is in International Wound Journal.

The burden of diabetic foot disease in the United States is immense. A 2014 study estimated that treatment of DFUs alone cost public and private insurers as much as $13 billion per year (Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):651-8).

MiMedx, which funded the new study, has developed a product called EpiCord to protect the DFU wound site. The product’s website describes it as a “unique, thick membrane derived from umbilical cord” that’s “minimally manipulated, dehydrated, [and] non-viable” (www.mimedx.com/epicord). The study authors noted that “immunogenicity of placental tissue lends credence to its use as an allograft material for difficult-to-heal wounds.”

For the new study, which was conducted from 2016 to 2018 and led by Dr. Tettelbach, an infectious disease specialist who is now an employee of MiMedx, the researchers enlisted 155 adult patients with stubborn DFUs at 11 centers in the United States.

All the ulcers had 30% or less wound area reduction after 14 days of standard care. The majority of patients (81%) were male; 63% were obese, 43% were smokers, and 17% had a prior amputation.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive a weekly application of EpiCord (n = 101) or treatment with an alginate wound dressing (n = 54) in addition to standard care. The percentage of patients whose wounds healed completely by 12 weeks later was higher in the study group than in those who were treated with alginate dressings (70% vs. 48%, respectively; P = .0089), per an intent-to-treat analysis.

The researchers also focused purely on patients who had received adequate debridement (107/155 ulcers, 69%). Of those ulcers, 64/67 (96%), in the study group healed completely at 12 weeks, compared with 26/40 (65%) of the alginate group (P less than .0001.)

The researchers did not notice any adverse effects related to either dressing.

According to the study, the findings regarding EpiCord are comparable with a sister study of a similar product by the same company that was tested in diabetic lower-extremity ulcers. That study, of a product called EpiFix, was published in the same issue of the journal (Int Wound J. 2019 Feb;16[1]:19-29).

“A thicker and more durable allograft such as EpiCord may be a good choice for implantation into deeper wounds and in situations where suturing the allograft in place is desired,” the authors wrote of the EpiCord study.

MiMedx provided research funding to all of the authors.

SOURCE: Tettelbach W et al. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):122-130. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12976.

Dehydrated human umbilical cord allograft may have benefit over alginate wound dressings as a treatment for chronic, nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), findings from an industry-funded, randomized controlled study suggest.

The findings “provide additional evidence of the safety and efficacy of dehydrated placental tissues,” wrote William Tettelbach, MD, and his colleagues. Their report is in International Wound Journal.

The burden of diabetic foot disease in the United States is immense. A 2014 study estimated that treatment of DFUs alone cost public and private insurers as much as $13 billion per year (Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):651-8).

MiMedx, which funded the new study, has developed a product called EpiCord to protect the DFU wound site. The product’s website describes it as a “unique, thick membrane derived from umbilical cord” that’s “minimally manipulated, dehydrated, [and] non-viable” (www.mimedx.com/epicord). The study authors noted that “immunogenicity of placental tissue lends credence to its use as an allograft material for difficult-to-heal wounds.”

For the new study, which was conducted from 2016 to 2018 and led by Dr. Tettelbach, an infectious disease specialist who is now an employee of MiMedx, the researchers enlisted 155 adult patients with stubborn DFUs at 11 centers in the United States.

All the ulcers had 30% or less wound area reduction after 14 days of standard care. The majority of patients (81%) were male; 63% were obese, 43% were smokers, and 17% had a prior amputation.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive a weekly application of EpiCord (n = 101) or treatment with an alginate wound dressing (n = 54) in addition to standard care. The percentage of patients whose wounds healed completely by 12 weeks later was higher in the study group than in those who were treated with alginate dressings (70% vs. 48%, respectively; P = .0089), per an intent-to-treat analysis.

The researchers also focused purely on patients who had received adequate debridement (107/155 ulcers, 69%). Of those ulcers, 64/67 (96%), in the study group healed completely at 12 weeks, compared with 26/40 (65%) of the alginate group (P less than .0001.)

The researchers did not notice any adverse effects related to either dressing.

According to the study, the findings regarding EpiCord are comparable with a sister study of a similar product by the same company that was tested in diabetic lower-extremity ulcers. That study, of a product called EpiFix, was published in the same issue of the journal (Int Wound J. 2019 Feb;16[1]:19-29).

“A thicker and more durable allograft such as EpiCord may be a good choice for implantation into deeper wounds and in situations where suturing the allograft in place is desired,” the authors wrote of the EpiCord study.

MiMedx provided research funding to all of the authors.

SOURCE: Tettelbach W et al. Int Wound J. 2019;16(1):122-130. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12976.

LAS VEGAS – An estimated 10%-30% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) don’t respond to biologics, leaving physicians with a big question: What now? Evidence suggests the best strategy is an approach grounded in therapeutic drug monitoring, appropriate disease monitoring, and other strategies, a gastroenterologist told colleagues.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

“We can’t look at any one of these tools in isolation,” said Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He spoke about a reactive approach to stubborn cases of IBD at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Loftus offered several tips and tidbits about managing IBD, especially when patients fail to appropriately respond to biologics.

• Many other conditions can cause symptoms that may appear to suggest lack of response to medication in IBD. These can include celiac disease, bacterial overgrowth, bile salt diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, hypersensitivity colitis, short bowel syndrome, and carbohydrate malabsorption. As a result, “before you make big changes in biologics or immunomodulators, make sure you’re actually confirming the presence of inflammation,” Dr. Loftus advised. Appropriate tests may be a colonoscopy/ileoscopy, CT or MR enterography, or a simple fecal calprotectin test; he also recommended that physicians exclude complications such as stricture, fistula, and abscess.
• The definition of lack of response in IBD has evolved over the years, Dr. Loftus said. The definition ideally refers to clinical response after an appropriate time period, such as 14 weeks of treatment (infliximab) or 8-12 weeks of treatment (injectable anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] drugs).
• Factors linked to primary nonresponse include disease duration of 2 years or more, smoking, and elevated C-reactive protein.
• Secondary lack of response – when drugs lose effectiveness over time even though they previously were effective – is common in IBD, with research suggesting it may affect about 20% of patients on infliximab or adalimumab.
• When patients fail to fully respond to a therapeutic level of an anti-TNF drug, research suggests it may be more effective to switch to another one rather than increase the dose, Dr. Loftus said.
• In cases of secondary lack of response in patients taking anti-TNF drugs, AGA guidelines suggest therapeutic drug monitoring may be appropriate, Dr. Loftus said. However, the AGA doesn’t make any recommendations regarding therapeutic drug monitoring in cases where IBD is dormant while patients are on anti-TNF drugs.
• Research suggests that a treat-to-target approach – designed to reach specific testing targets – may boost the effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring, Dr. Loftus said, and algorithm-based treatment might be even better.

“Therapeutic drug management in isolation will only get you so far,” he advised. “But don’t be confused. The drug level is not the target. The absence of inflammation is the target.”

Dr. Loftus reported recent relationships (research support and consultant) with multiple drugmakers, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Gilead, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and several others.

LAS VEGAS – An estimated 10%-30% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) don’t respond to biologics, leaving physicians with a big question: What now? Evidence suggests the best strategy is an approach grounded in therapeutic drug monitoring, appropriate disease monitoring, and other strategies, a gastroenterologist told colleagues.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

“We can’t look at any one of these tools in isolation,” said Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He spoke about a reactive approach to stubborn cases of IBD at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Loftus offered several tips and tidbits about managing IBD, especially when patients fail to appropriately respond to biologics.

• Many other conditions can cause symptoms that may appear to suggest lack of response to medication in IBD. These can include celiac disease, bacterial overgrowth, bile salt diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, hypersensitivity colitis, short bowel syndrome, and carbohydrate malabsorption. As a result, “before you make big changes in biologics or immunomodulators, make sure you’re actually confirming the presence of inflammation,” Dr. Loftus advised. Appropriate tests may be a colonoscopy/ileoscopy, CT or MR enterography, or a simple fecal calprotectin test; he also recommended that physicians exclude complications such as stricture, fistula, and abscess.
• The definition of lack of response in IBD has evolved over the years, Dr. Loftus said. The definition ideally refers to clinical response after an appropriate time period, such as 14 weeks of treatment (infliximab) or 8-12 weeks of treatment (injectable anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] drugs).
• Factors linked to primary nonresponse include disease duration of 2 years or more, smoking, and elevated C-reactive protein.
• Secondary lack of response – when drugs lose effectiveness over time even though they previously were effective – is common in IBD, with research suggesting it may affect about 20% of patients on infliximab or adalimumab.
• When patients fail to fully respond to a therapeutic level of an anti-TNF drug, research suggests it may be more effective to switch to another one rather than increase the dose, Dr. Loftus said.
• In cases of secondary lack of response in patients taking anti-TNF drugs, AGA guidelines suggest therapeutic drug monitoring may be appropriate, Dr. Loftus said. However, the AGA doesn’t make any recommendations regarding therapeutic drug monitoring in cases where IBD is dormant while patients are on anti-TNF drugs.
• Research suggests that a treat-to-target approach – designed to reach specific testing targets – may boost the effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring, Dr. Loftus said, and algorithm-based treatment might be even better.

“Therapeutic drug management in isolation will only get you so far,” he advised. “But don’t be confused. The drug level is not the target. The absence of inflammation is the target.”

Dr. Loftus reported recent relationships (research support and consultant) with multiple drugmakers, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Gilead, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and several others.

LAS VEGAS – An estimated 10%-30% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) don’t respond to biologics, leaving physicians with a big question: What now? Evidence suggests the best strategy is an approach grounded in therapeutic drug monitoring, appropriate disease monitoring, and other strategies, a gastroenterologist told colleagues.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

“We can’t look at any one of these tools in isolation,” said Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He spoke about a reactive approach to stubborn cases of IBD at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Loftus offered several tips and tidbits about managing IBD, especially when patients fail to appropriately respond to biologics.

• Many other conditions can cause symptoms that may appear to suggest lack of response to medication in IBD. These can include celiac disease, bacterial overgrowth, bile salt diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, hypersensitivity colitis, short bowel syndrome, and carbohydrate malabsorption. As a result, “before you make big changes in biologics or immunomodulators, make sure you’re actually confirming the presence of inflammation,” Dr. Loftus advised. Appropriate tests may be a colonoscopy/ileoscopy, CT or MR enterography, or a simple fecal calprotectin test; he also recommended that physicians exclude complications such as stricture, fistula, and abscess.
• The definition of lack of response in IBD has evolved over the years, Dr. Loftus said. The definition ideally refers to clinical response after an appropriate time period, such as 14 weeks of treatment (infliximab) or 8-12 weeks of treatment (injectable anti–tumor necrosis factor [TNF] drugs).
• Factors linked to primary nonresponse include disease duration of 2 years or more, smoking, and elevated C-reactive protein.
• Secondary lack of response – when drugs lose effectiveness over time even though they previously were effective – is common in IBD, with research suggesting it may affect about 20% of patients on infliximab or adalimumab.
• When patients fail to fully respond to a therapeutic level of an anti-TNF drug, research suggests it may be more effective to switch to another one rather than increase the dose, Dr. Loftus said.
• In cases of secondary lack of response in patients taking anti-TNF drugs, AGA guidelines suggest therapeutic drug monitoring may be appropriate, Dr. Loftus said. However, the AGA doesn’t make any recommendations regarding therapeutic drug monitoring in cases where IBD is dormant while patients are on anti-TNF drugs.
• Research suggests that a treat-to-target approach – designed to reach specific testing targets – may boost the effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring, Dr. Loftus said, and algorithm-based treatment might be even better.

“Therapeutic drug management in isolation will only get you so far,” he advised. “But don’t be confused. The drug level is not the target. The absence of inflammation is the target.”

Dr. Loftus reported recent relationships (research support and consultant) with multiple drugmakers, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Gilead, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and several others.

Antidepressants could be the best adjunctive treatment for adult outpatients with schizophrenia who are taking a second-generation antipsychotic and need a change in medication, results of an observational study suggest. Patients who added antidepressants to their treatment had a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization and emergency room visits than did those who tried an alternative antipsychotic, and those who took mood stabilizers and benzodiazepines were significantly more likely to die over 365 days.

Specifically, “the possibility that adjunctive use of gabapentin is associated with increased risk of death raises a serious concern,” wrote T. Scott Stroup, MD, MPH, of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and his associates in JAMA Psychiatry.

Often, Dr. Stroup and his associates noted, second-generation antipsychotics often are insufficient to alleviate symptoms and leave patients with functional limitations. Still, there’s “little high-quality evidence” regarding the best treatments for schizophrenia, said Dr. Stroup, who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute, and his associates.

Using a Medicaid database, the researchers retrospectively tracked 81,921 outpatients with schizophrenia (aged 18-64 years; mean age, 41 years; 46% women) who were treated with a single antipsychotic from 2001-2010. Each patient added an antidepressant (31,117), a benzodiazepine (11,941), a mood stabilizer (12,849), or another second-generation antipsychotic (26,014).

The researchers examined treatment outcomes over a yearlong period after patients began their new treatment and compared the various groups to the reference group (those who began taking an additional antipsychotic medication).

Compared with the reference group, patients who took an antidepressant had a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.88), while the benzodiazepine group had a higher risk (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and the mood stabilizer group saw no major difference (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.03). Similar results were found for the risk of psychiatric emergency department visits, compared with the reference group: The HR with the addition of an antidepressant was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 1.12 with a benzodiazepine (95% CI, 1.07-1.19), and 0.99 with a mood stabilizer (95% CI, 0.94-1.04).

In regard to mortality, the researchers found that mood stabilizers and benzodiazepines stood apart on the risk front with HRs of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.66) and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.98-1.52), respectively. Among mood stabilizer use, Gabapentin accounted for 1,755 initiations (13.7%) and was associated with 45 deaths (28.0%), the researchers reported. “No other mood stabilizer appeared to be associated with a higher rate of death than the others.”

Dr. Stroup and his associates cited several limitations. One is that the results might not be generalizable because the investigators looked only at patients who were enrolled in the Medicaid program. Nevertheless, “improved pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia and consequent reduced need for hospitalization and ED visits associated with more antidepressant and less benzodiazepine use would represent a significant benefit for individuals and for public health,” they wrote.

The study authors reported various relationships with drugmakers, including Auspex, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. The study was funded by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute award.

SOURCE: Stroup TS et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4489.

Antidepressants could be the best adjunctive treatment for adult outpatients with schizophrenia who are taking a second-generation antipsychotic and need a change in medication, results of an observational study suggest. Patients who added antidepressants to their treatment had a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization and emergency room visits than did those who tried an alternative antipsychotic, and those who took mood stabilizers and benzodiazepines were significantly more likely to die over 365 days.

Specifically, “the possibility that adjunctive use of gabapentin is associated with increased risk of death raises a serious concern,” wrote T. Scott Stroup, MD, MPH, of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and his associates in JAMA Psychiatry.

Often, Dr. Stroup and his associates noted, second-generation antipsychotics often are insufficient to alleviate symptoms and leave patients with functional limitations. Still, there’s “little high-quality evidence” regarding the best treatments for schizophrenia, said Dr. Stroup, who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute, and his associates.

Using a Medicaid database, the researchers retrospectively tracked 81,921 outpatients with schizophrenia (aged 18-64 years; mean age, 41 years; 46% women) who were treated with a single antipsychotic from 2001-2010. Each patient added an antidepressant (31,117), a benzodiazepine (11,941), a mood stabilizer (12,849), or another second-generation antipsychotic (26,014).

The researchers examined treatment outcomes over a yearlong period after patients began their new treatment and compared the various groups to the reference group (those who began taking an additional antipsychotic medication).

Compared with the reference group, patients who took an antidepressant had a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.88), while the benzodiazepine group had a higher risk (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and the mood stabilizer group saw no major difference (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.03). Similar results were found for the risk of psychiatric emergency department visits, compared with the reference group: The HR with the addition of an antidepressant was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 1.12 with a benzodiazepine (95% CI, 1.07-1.19), and 0.99 with a mood stabilizer (95% CI, 0.94-1.04).

In regard to mortality, the researchers found that mood stabilizers and benzodiazepines stood apart on the risk front with HRs of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.66) and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.98-1.52), respectively. Among mood stabilizer use, Gabapentin accounted for 1,755 initiations (13.7%) and was associated with 45 deaths (28.0%), the researchers reported. “No other mood stabilizer appeared to be associated with a higher rate of death than the others.”

Dr. Stroup and his associates cited several limitations. One is that the results might not be generalizable because the investigators looked only at patients who were enrolled in the Medicaid program. Nevertheless, “improved pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia and consequent reduced need for hospitalization and ED visits associated with more antidepressant and less benzodiazepine use would represent a significant benefit for individuals and for public health,” they wrote.

The study authors reported various relationships with drugmakers, including Auspex, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. The study was funded by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute award.

SOURCE: Stroup TS et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4489.

Antidepressants could be the best adjunctive treatment for adult outpatients with schizophrenia who are taking a second-generation antipsychotic and need a change in medication, results of an observational study suggest. Patients who added antidepressants to their treatment had a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization and emergency room visits than did those who tried an alternative antipsychotic, and those who took mood stabilizers and benzodiazepines were significantly more likely to die over 365 days.

Specifically, “the possibility that adjunctive use of gabapentin is associated with increased risk of death raises a serious concern,” wrote T. Scott Stroup, MD, MPH, of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and his associates in JAMA Psychiatry.

Often, Dr. Stroup and his associates noted, second-generation antipsychotics often are insufficient to alleviate symptoms and leave patients with functional limitations. Still, there’s “little high-quality evidence” regarding the best treatments for schizophrenia, said Dr. Stroup, who is also affiliated with the New York State Psychiatric Institute, and his associates.

Using a Medicaid database, the researchers retrospectively tracked 81,921 outpatients with schizophrenia (aged 18-64 years; mean age, 41 years; 46% women) who were treated with a single antipsychotic from 2001-2010. Each patient added an antidepressant (31,117), a benzodiazepine (11,941), a mood stabilizer (12,849), or another second-generation antipsychotic (26,014).

The researchers examined treatment outcomes over a yearlong period after patients began their new treatment and compared the various groups to the reference group (those who began taking an additional antipsychotic medication).

Compared with the reference group, patients who took an antidepressant had a lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.88), while the benzodiazepine group had a higher risk (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and the mood stabilizer group saw no major difference (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.03). Similar results were found for the risk of psychiatric emergency department visits, compared with the reference group: The HR with the addition of an antidepressant was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.88-0.96), 1.12 with a benzodiazepine (95% CI, 1.07-1.19), and 0.99 with a mood stabilizer (95% CI, 0.94-1.04).

In regard to mortality, the researchers found that mood stabilizers and benzodiazepines stood apart on the risk front with HRs of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.66) and 1.22 (95% CI, 0.98-1.52), respectively. Among mood stabilizer use, Gabapentin accounted for 1,755 initiations (13.7%) and was associated with 45 deaths (28.0%), the researchers reported. “No other mood stabilizer appeared to be associated with a higher rate of death than the others.”

Dr. Stroup and his associates cited several limitations. One is that the results might not be generalizable because the investigators looked only at patients who were enrolled in the Medicaid program. Nevertheless, “improved pharmacologic treatment of schizophrenia and consequent reduced need for hospitalization and ED visits associated with more antidepressant and less benzodiazepine use would represent a significant benefit for individuals and for public health,” they wrote.

The study authors reported various relationships with drugmakers, including Auspex, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. The study was funded by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute award.

SOURCE: Stroup TS et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4489.

The gout drug febuxostat (Uloric) poses a significantly higher risk of all-cause and heart-related death than does the popular alternative drug allopurinol, the Food and Drug Administration declared on Feb. 21. The agency is now mandating a black-box warning.

“Health care professionals should reserve Uloric for use only in patients who have failed or do not tolerate allopurinol,” the FDA announced. “Counsel patients about the cardiovascular risk with Uloric,” the agency suggested, and advise them to seek medical attention at once if they have cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, rapid or irregular heartbeat, or dizziness.

The FDA’s move comes a decade after it approved febuxostat as a gout treatment. As the FDA noted in its announcement, “the number of medicines to treat gout is limited, and there is an unmet need for treatments for this disease.”

Research has suggested that both febuxostat and allopurinol have similar efficacy. Some experts have recommended febuxostat as an alternative for patients who shouldn’t take allopurinol (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Dec;43[3]:367-75).

However, research has raised concerns about febuxostat’s cardiac risk. In its Feb. 21 statement, the FDA pointed to the findings of a 2010-2017 postmarket clinical trial of 6,190 patients with gout who were treated with febuxostat or allopurinol (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1200-10).

“In patients treated with Uloric, 15 deaths from heart-related causes were observed for every 1,000 patients treated for a year compared to 11 deaths from heart-related causes per 1,000 patients treated with allopurinol for a year,” the FDA said. “In addition, there were 26 deaths from any cause per 1,000 patients treated for a year with Uloric compared to 22 deaths per 1,000 patients treated for a year with allopurinol.”

The gout drug febuxostat (Uloric) poses a significantly higher risk of all-cause and heart-related death than does the popular alternative drug allopurinol, the Food and Drug Administration declared on Feb. 21. The agency is now mandating a black-box warning.

“Health care professionals should reserve Uloric for use only in patients who have failed or do not tolerate allopurinol,” the FDA announced. “Counsel patients about the cardiovascular risk with Uloric,” the agency suggested, and advise them to seek medical attention at once if they have cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, rapid or irregular heartbeat, or dizziness.

The FDA’s move comes a decade after it approved febuxostat as a gout treatment. As the FDA noted in its announcement, “the number of medicines to treat gout is limited, and there is an unmet need for treatments for this disease.”

Research has suggested that both febuxostat and allopurinol have similar efficacy. Some experts have recommended febuxostat as an alternative for patients who shouldn’t take allopurinol (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Dec;43[3]:367-75).

However, research has raised concerns about febuxostat’s cardiac risk. In its Feb. 21 statement, the FDA pointed to the findings of a 2010-2017 postmarket clinical trial of 6,190 patients with gout who were treated with febuxostat or allopurinol (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1200-10).

“In patients treated with Uloric, 15 deaths from heart-related causes were observed for every 1,000 patients treated for a year compared to 11 deaths from heart-related causes per 1,000 patients treated with allopurinol for a year,” the FDA said. “In addition, there were 26 deaths from any cause per 1,000 patients treated for a year with Uloric compared to 22 deaths per 1,000 patients treated for a year with allopurinol.”

The gout drug febuxostat (Uloric) poses a significantly higher risk of all-cause and heart-related death than does the popular alternative drug allopurinol, the Food and Drug Administration declared on Feb. 21. The agency is now mandating a black-box warning.

“Health care professionals should reserve Uloric for use only in patients who have failed or do not tolerate allopurinol,” the FDA announced. “Counsel patients about the cardiovascular risk with Uloric,” the agency suggested, and advise them to seek medical attention at once if they have cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, rapid or irregular heartbeat, or dizziness.

The FDA’s move comes a decade after it approved febuxostat as a gout treatment. As the FDA noted in its announcement, “the number of medicines to treat gout is limited, and there is an unmet need for treatments for this disease.”

Research has suggested that both febuxostat and allopurinol have similar efficacy. Some experts have recommended febuxostat as an alternative for patients who shouldn’t take allopurinol (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013 Dec;43[3]:367-75).

However, research has raised concerns about febuxostat’s cardiac risk. In its Feb. 21 statement, the FDA pointed to the findings of a 2010-2017 postmarket clinical trial of 6,190 patients with gout who were treated with febuxostat or allopurinol (N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1200-10).

“In patients treated with Uloric, 15 deaths from heart-related causes were observed for every 1,000 patients treated for a year compared to 11 deaths from heart-related causes per 1,000 patients treated with allopurinol for a year,” the FDA said. “In addition, there were 26 deaths from any cause per 1,000 patients treated for a year with Uloric compared to 22 deaths per 1,000 patients treated for a year with allopurinol.”