Mixed Topics

Many hospitalists agree that their most productive and also sometimes least productive work can happen in the setting of interdisciplinary rounds. How can this paradox be true?

Most hospitals strive to assemble the health care team every day for a brief discussion of each patient’s needs as well as barriers to a safe/successful discharge. On most floors this requires a well-choreographed “dance” of nurses, case managers, social workers, physicians, and advanced practice providers coming together at agreed-upon times. All team members commit to efficient synchronized swimming through the most high-yield details for each patient in order to benefit the patients and families being served.

Of course, there are always challenges to this process in the unpredictable world of patients with acute needs. One variable that is at least partially controllable and tends to promote a more cohesive interdisciplinary experience is that of hospitalist unit-based rounding.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) survey reveals that 68% of hospital medicine groups serving adults with greater than 30 physicians employ some degree of unit-based rounding; this trend decreases with smaller group size. About 54% of academic hospital medicine groups use some amount of unit-based rounding. Not surprisingly, smaller hospitals are less likely to have this routine, likely because of fewer total nursing units.

One of the most obvious benefits to unit-based rounding is that the physician or advanced practice provider is more reliably able to participate in the interdisciplinary discussions that day. When more of the team members are at the table each day, patients and families have the best chance of hearing a consistent message around the treatment and discharge plans.

There are challenges to unit-based rounding as well. If patients transfer to different floors for any variety of reasons, strict unit-based rounding may increase handoffs in care. If a hospital has times when it isn’t completely full and nursing units have a varying percentage of being occupied, strict unit-based rounding can cause significant workload inequities among physicians on different units, depending on numbers of patients on each unit.

If there is no attempt at unit-based rounding in larger hospitals, some physicians may be running among five or more units. They work to find different care managers, nurses, and pharmacists – not to mention the challenges of catching patients in their rooms between their departures for diagnostic studies and procedures.

It is often good to balance the benefit of promoting unit-based rounds with the reality of everyday patient care. Some groups maintain that the physician/patient relationship trumps the idea of perfect unit-based rounding. In other words, if a physician establishes a relationship with a patient while they are in the ED being admitted or boarding from overnight, that physician will continue seeing the patient regardless of the patient being assigned to a different unit. It can help for groups to agree that the pursuit of unit-based rounding may create some inequity in the numbers of patients seen each day because of these issues.

In a larger hospital, certain units are often dedicated to specialty care such as cardiac or stroke care. While most hospitalists want to maintain general medical knowledge, there are some who may enjoy having portions of their practice devoted to perioperative medicine or cardiac care, for instance. This promotes familiarity among hospitalists and groups of consultant physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Over time this allows for enhanced teamwork among those physicians, the nursing team, and the specialty physicians.

Depending on the group’s schedule, patients can be reassigned coinciding with the primary change of service day. This resets the physicians’ patients in the most ideal unit-based way on the evening prior to the first day of rounding for that week or group of shifts.

No matter how you do it, the goal of unit-based rounding is time efficiency for the care team and care coordination benefits for patients and families. If you have other suggestions or questions, go online to SHM HMX to join the discussion.

Take-home message: Unit-based rounding likely has its benefits. Don’t let the inability to achieve perfection in patient distribution to the physicians each day lead to abandonment of attempting these processes.
 

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.

Many hospitalists agree that their most productive and also sometimes least productive work can happen in the setting of interdisciplinary rounds. How can this paradox be true?

Most hospitals strive to assemble the health care team every day for a brief discussion of each patient’s needs as well as barriers to a safe/successful discharge. On most floors this requires a well-choreographed “dance” of nurses, case managers, social workers, physicians, and advanced practice providers coming together at agreed-upon times. All team members commit to efficient synchronized swimming through the most high-yield details for each patient in order to benefit the patients and families being served.

Of course, there are always challenges to this process in the unpredictable world of patients with acute needs. One variable that is at least partially controllable and tends to promote a more cohesive interdisciplinary experience is that of hospitalist unit-based rounding.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) survey reveals that 68% of hospital medicine groups serving adults with greater than 30 physicians employ some degree of unit-based rounding; this trend decreases with smaller group size. About 54% of academic hospital medicine groups use some amount of unit-based rounding. Not surprisingly, smaller hospitals are less likely to have this routine, likely because of fewer total nursing units.

One of the most obvious benefits to unit-based rounding is that the physician or advanced practice provider is more reliably able to participate in the interdisciplinary discussions that day. When more of the team members are at the table each day, patients and families have the best chance of hearing a consistent message around the treatment and discharge plans.

There are challenges to unit-based rounding as well. If patients transfer to different floors for any variety of reasons, strict unit-based rounding may increase handoffs in care. If a hospital has times when it isn’t completely full and nursing units have a varying percentage of being occupied, strict unit-based rounding can cause significant workload inequities among physicians on different units, depending on numbers of patients on each unit.

If there is no attempt at unit-based rounding in larger hospitals, some physicians may be running among five or more units. They work to find different care managers, nurses, and pharmacists – not to mention the challenges of catching patients in their rooms between their departures for diagnostic studies and procedures.

It is often good to balance the benefit of promoting unit-based rounds with the reality of everyday patient care. Some groups maintain that the physician/patient relationship trumps the idea of perfect unit-based rounding. In other words, if a physician establishes a relationship with a patient while they are in the ED being admitted or boarding from overnight, that physician will continue seeing the patient regardless of the patient being assigned to a different unit. It can help for groups to agree that the pursuit of unit-based rounding may create some inequity in the numbers of patients seen each day because of these issues.

In a larger hospital, certain units are often dedicated to specialty care such as cardiac or stroke care. While most hospitalists want to maintain general medical knowledge, there are some who may enjoy having portions of their practice devoted to perioperative medicine or cardiac care, for instance. This promotes familiarity among hospitalists and groups of consultant physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Over time this allows for enhanced teamwork among those physicians, the nursing team, and the specialty physicians.

Depending on the group’s schedule, patients can be reassigned coinciding with the primary change of service day. This resets the physicians’ patients in the most ideal unit-based way on the evening prior to the first day of rounding for that week or group of shifts.

No matter how you do it, the goal of unit-based rounding is time efficiency for the care team and care coordination benefits for patients and families. If you have other suggestions or questions, go online to SHM HMX to join the discussion.

Take-home message: Unit-based rounding likely has its benefits. Don’t let the inability to achieve perfection in patient distribution to the physicians each day lead to abandonment of attempting these processes.
 

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.

Many hospitalists agree that their most productive and also sometimes least productive work can happen in the setting of interdisciplinary rounds. How can this paradox be true?

Most hospitals strive to assemble the health care team every day for a brief discussion of each patient’s needs as well as barriers to a safe/successful discharge. On most floors this requires a well-choreographed “dance” of nurses, case managers, social workers, physicians, and advanced practice providers coming together at agreed-upon times. All team members commit to efficient synchronized swimming through the most high-yield details for each patient in order to benefit the patients and families being served.

Of course, there are always challenges to this process in the unpredictable world of patients with acute needs. One variable that is at least partially controllable and tends to promote a more cohesive interdisciplinary experience is that of hospitalist unit-based rounding.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) survey reveals that 68% of hospital medicine groups serving adults with greater than 30 physicians employ some degree of unit-based rounding; this trend decreases with smaller group size. About 54% of academic hospital medicine groups use some amount of unit-based rounding. Not surprisingly, smaller hospitals are less likely to have this routine, likely because of fewer total nursing units.

One of the most obvious benefits to unit-based rounding is that the physician or advanced practice provider is more reliably able to participate in the interdisciplinary discussions that day. When more of the team members are at the table each day, patients and families have the best chance of hearing a consistent message around the treatment and discharge plans.

There are challenges to unit-based rounding as well. If patients transfer to different floors for any variety of reasons, strict unit-based rounding may increase handoffs in care. If a hospital has times when it isn’t completely full and nursing units have a varying percentage of being occupied, strict unit-based rounding can cause significant workload inequities among physicians on different units, depending on numbers of patients on each unit.

If there is no attempt at unit-based rounding in larger hospitals, some physicians may be running among five or more units. They work to find different care managers, nurses, and pharmacists – not to mention the challenges of catching patients in their rooms between their departures for diagnostic studies and procedures.

It is often good to balance the benefit of promoting unit-based rounds with the reality of everyday patient care. Some groups maintain that the physician/patient relationship trumps the idea of perfect unit-based rounding. In other words, if a physician establishes a relationship with a patient while they are in the ED being admitted or boarding from overnight, that physician will continue seeing the patient regardless of the patient being assigned to a different unit. It can help for groups to agree that the pursuit of unit-based rounding may create some inequity in the numbers of patients seen each day because of these issues.

In a larger hospital, certain units are often dedicated to specialty care such as cardiac or stroke care. While most hospitalists want to maintain general medical knowledge, there are some who may enjoy having portions of their practice devoted to perioperative medicine or cardiac care, for instance. This promotes familiarity among hospitalists and groups of consultant physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Over time this allows for enhanced teamwork among those physicians, the nursing team, and the specialty physicians.

Depending on the group’s schedule, patients can be reassigned coinciding with the primary change of service day. This resets the physicians’ patients in the most ideal unit-based way on the evening prior to the first day of rounding for that week or group of shifts.

No matter how you do it, the goal of unit-based rounding is time efficiency for the care team and care coordination benefits for patients and families. If you have other suggestions or questions, go online to SHM HMX to join the discussion.

Take-home message: Unit-based rounding likely has its benefits. Don’t let the inability to achieve perfection in patient distribution to the physicians each day lead to abandonment of attempting these processes.
 

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.

While women were found to be at lower risk of major cardiovascular events than men after non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), a new study has also shown that they remain undertreated with guideline-directed therapies.

©Thinkstock

“These findings underscore the fact that efforts to modify risk factors and implement appropriate treatment strategies in women and men may be a powerful means to further improve outcomes among patients with NSTEACS,” wrote Amy A. Sarma, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine if outcomes differed between men and women after NSTEACS, the researchers analyzed 68,730 patients from 10 different clinical trials as part of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group. All trials enrolled patients with NSTEACS within 30 days of hospitalization. Across the 10 trials, there were a total of 19,827 women (29%).

Female patients had an average age of 67 years, compared with a mean age of 62 years for men. Women were also more likely to have had hypertension, diabetes, or prior heart failure, though less likely to have had a prior MI. In regard to treatment strategies for NSTEACS, women were less likely to receive aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, or statins. Women at high risk were also less likely to receive aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, or statins.

Before adjusted analysis, women and men had a similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – defined as cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke – after NSTEACS (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.09; P = .16). However, women were found to be at increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P = .03), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .03), and stroke (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = .02).

After adjusting for baseline risk predictors, women were found to have a 7% lower risk of MACE (adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; P = .005), along with a 15% lower risk of cardiovascular death (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; P = .008) and a 16% lower risk of all-cause death (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P less than .0001). Additional adjustments for guideline-based therapies did not significantly alter the risk estimates.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael E. Farkouh, MD, and Wendy Tsang, MD, of the University of Toronto noted that this study from Sarma et al. underlines the “lack of progress made in addressing sex inequality in the care for women with ACS” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.017).

Though Dr. Farkouh and Dr. Tsang were not surprised that the women in the study were older than the men, as women typically develop cardiovascular disease later, they noted that the women also presented with higher baseline risk. Could this be because of the “persistent perception that coronary disease is a male disease?” They cited the treatment-risk paradox and an emphasis on diagnosing obstructive coronary disease – typically seen in men – as potential contributors to underdiagnosis and undertreatment in at-risk women.

“That this care gap for women with cardiovascular diseases continues to persist, even in well-run contemporary landmark ACS trials, highlights how challenging it is to address,” they wrote.

Dr. Sarma and coauthors acknowledged their study’s potential limitations, including the 10 trials differing in study design, enrollment timing, treatments tested, and follow-up duration. They also noted that the cohort of patients were all at moderate to high risk, which may not make the findings generalizable to the broader NSTEACS patient population.

The study authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants from – and serving as a consultant or on the advisory board of – various pharmaceutical and medical companies. Dr. Farkouh reported receiving research support from Amgen and Novo Nordisk, and Dr. Tsang is supported by a National New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

SOURCE: Sarma AA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.065.

While women were found to be at lower risk of major cardiovascular events than men after non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), a new study has also shown that they remain undertreated with guideline-directed therapies.

©Thinkstock

“These findings underscore the fact that efforts to modify risk factors and implement appropriate treatment strategies in women and men may be a powerful means to further improve outcomes among patients with NSTEACS,” wrote Amy A. Sarma, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine if outcomes differed between men and women after NSTEACS, the researchers analyzed 68,730 patients from 10 different clinical trials as part of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group. All trials enrolled patients with NSTEACS within 30 days of hospitalization. Across the 10 trials, there were a total of 19,827 women (29%).

Female patients had an average age of 67 years, compared with a mean age of 62 years for men. Women were also more likely to have had hypertension, diabetes, or prior heart failure, though less likely to have had a prior MI. In regard to treatment strategies for NSTEACS, women were less likely to receive aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, or statins. Women at high risk were also less likely to receive aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, or statins.

Before adjusted analysis, women and men had a similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – defined as cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke – after NSTEACS (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.09; P = .16). However, women were found to be at increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P = .03), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .03), and stroke (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = .02).

After adjusting for baseline risk predictors, women were found to have a 7% lower risk of MACE (adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; P = .005), along with a 15% lower risk of cardiovascular death (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; P = .008) and a 16% lower risk of all-cause death (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P less than .0001). Additional adjustments for guideline-based therapies did not significantly alter the risk estimates.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael E. Farkouh, MD, and Wendy Tsang, MD, of the University of Toronto noted that this study from Sarma et al. underlines the “lack of progress made in addressing sex inequality in the care for women with ACS” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.017).

Though Dr. Farkouh and Dr. Tsang were not surprised that the women in the study were older than the men, as women typically develop cardiovascular disease later, they noted that the women also presented with higher baseline risk. Could this be because of the “persistent perception that coronary disease is a male disease?” They cited the treatment-risk paradox and an emphasis on diagnosing obstructive coronary disease – typically seen in men – as potential contributors to underdiagnosis and undertreatment in at-risk women.

“That this care gap for women with cardiovascular diseases continues to persist, even in well-run contemporary landmark ACS trials, highlights how challenging it is to address,” they wrote.

Dr. Sarma and coauthors acknowledged their study’s potential limitations, including the 10 trials differing in study design, enrollment timing, treatments tested, and follow-up duration. They also noted that the cohort of patients were all at moderate to high risk, which may not make the findings generalizable to the broader NSTEACS patient population.

The study authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants from – and serving as a consultant or on the advisory board of – various pharmaceutical and medical companies. Dr. Farkouh reported receiving research support from Amgen and Novo Nordisk, and Dr. Tsang is supported by a National New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

SOURCE: Sarma AA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.065.

While women were found to be at lower risk of major cardiovascular events than men after non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), a new study has also shown that they remain undertreated with guideline-directed therapies.

©Thinkstock

“These findings underscore the fact that efforts to modify risk factors and implement appropriate treatment strategies in women and men may be a powerful means to further improve outcomes among patients with NSTEACS,” wrote Amy A. Sarma, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and coauthors. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine if outcomes differed between men and women after NSTEACS, the researchers analyzed 68,730 patients from 10 different clinical trials as part of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group. All trials enrolled patients with NSTEACS within 30 days of hospitalization. Across the 10 trials, there were a total of 19,827 women (29%).

Female patients had an average age of 67 years, compared with a mean age of 62 years for men. Women were also more likely to have had hypertension, diabetes, or prior heart failure, though less likely to have had a prior MI. In regard to treatment strategies for NSTEACS, women were less likely to receive aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, or statins. Women at high risk were also less likely to receive aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, or statins.

Before adjusted analysis, women and men had a similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – defined as cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke – after NSTEACS (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.09; P = .16). However, women were found to be at increased risk of cardiovascular death (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32; P = .03), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .03), and stroke (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = .02).

After adjusting for baseline risk predictors, women were found to have a 7% lower risk of MACE (adjusted HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.98; P = .005), along with a 15% lower risk of cardiovascular death (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; P = .008) and a 16% lower risk of all-cause death (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P less than .0001). Additional adjustments for guideline-based therapies did not significantly alter the risk estimates.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael E. Farkouh, MD, and Wendy Tsang, MD, of the University of Toronto noted that this study from Sarma et al. underlines the “lack of progress made in addressing sex inequality in the care for women with ACS” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.017).

Though Dr. Farkouh and Dr. Tsang were not surprised that the women in the study were older than the men, as women typically develop cardiovascular disease later, they noted that the women also presented with higher baseline risk. Could this be because of the “persistent perception that coronary disease is a male disease?” They cited the treatment-risk paradox and an emphasis on diagnosing obstructive coronary disease – typically seen in men – as potential contributors to underdiagnosis and undertreatment in at-risk women.

“That this care gap for women with cardiovascular diseases continues to persist, even in well-run contemporary landmark ACS trials, highlights how challenging it is to address,” they wrote.

Dr. Sarma and coauthors acknowledged their study’s potential limitations, including the 10 trials differing in study design, enrollment timing, treatments tested, and follow-up duration. They also noted that the cohort of patients were all at moderate to high risk, which may not make the findings generalizable to the broader NSTEACS patient population.

The study authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants from – and serving as a consultant or on the advisory board of – various pharmaceutical and medical companies. Dr. Farkouh reported receiving research support from Amgen and Novo Nordisk, and Dr. Tsang is supported by a National New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

SOURCE: Sarma AA et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.09.065.

ATLANTA – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were more at risk of postoperative infection because of a high Charlson Comorbidity Index or longer surgery time than because of perioperative use of antirheumatic medications, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Anna Shmagel, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 154 patients with seropositive RA who were in the Fairview Health System between Jan. 2010 and Dec. 2017 and underwent either orthopedic or major organ surgery. The patients were classified based on their use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics alone or in combination, with patients divided into “no DMARD or biologic,” “DMARD but no biologic” and “biologic with or without DMARD” groups.

The question of whether to discontinue antirheumatic medications before surgery is still controversial, with conflicting evidence across studies, Dr. Shmagel said in her presentation. A study by Giles and colleagues found 10 of 91 patients (11%) RA who underwent an orthopedic surgical procedure developed a postoperative infection, with patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors more likely to develop an infection, compared with patients who were not receiving TNF inhibitors (Arthritis Care Res. 2006. doi: 10.1002/art.21841).

However, other studies have challenged that idea, and a 2018 study from Goodman and colleagues raised the issue of whether patients stopping biologics prior to surgery are at increased risk of flares. Of 120 RA patients in their study who underwent total hip or total knee arthroplasty, 75% of patients flared at 6 weeks after surgery. While patients who halted biologics before surgery were more likely to flare, stopping biologics did not predict flaring after surgery (J Rheumatol. 2018. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170366).

“It’s not entirely clear whether these theories are related to what we do with antirheumatic medications, but we felt that it was pertinent to further study this question.” Dr. Shmagel said.

Dr. Shmagel and colleagues examined the 30-day infection rate of RA patients postoperatively, with 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality rates as secondary outcomes. Patient-associated factors such as age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income, and use of corticosteroids were analyzed as covariates in addition to factors involving surgery such as expected surgery time, perioperative antibiotic use, and whether the procedure was elective or emergency surgery.

A majority of the patients in the study across all groups were white women about 63 years old with a body mass index above 30 kg/m² and almost all undergoing electing surgery compared with emergency surgery. While patients in each group were similar with regard to Charlson Comorbidity Index, expected length of surgery, and percentage of patients undergoing elective surgery, patients in the biologic with or without DMARD group had a significantly lower median income level compared with those in the other two groups (P = .01).

Overall, there were 244 surgeries in 154 patients, with 117 surgeries in the group not receiving biologics or DMARDs, 95 surgeries in the group receiving DMARDs but no biologics, and 32 surgeries in the biologics with or without DMARD group. In the DMARD but no biologics group, most patients were receiving methotrexate (45%) or hydroxychloroquine (44%), while the most common biologics in the biologics with or without DMARD group were infliximab (25%), tocilizumab (19%), abatacept (16%), etanercept (13%), rituximab (9%), and tofacitinib (9%).

There was an 11% overall rate of infection, with a similar rate of infection across all groups (P = .09). While there was a higher rate of surgical site infections among patients in the biologics with or without DMARD group (9%) and a higher percentage of urinary tract infections in the no DMARD and no biologics group (4%), the results were not statistically significant. When the rate of infections was examined by type of surgery, there were no significant differences between infections from musculoskeletal surgery (P = .7) and major organ surgery (P = .8).

The overall 30-day readmission rate was 12%, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Although there were five deaths in the study, four deaths were in the group not receiving DMARDs or biologics, and one death was in the biologic with or without DMARD group.

Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index did predict infection risk, with an odds ratio of 1.37 per 1-point increase in the index (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.70). Length of surgery also increased the risk of infection, with an OR of 1.16 per 15-minute increase in surgery time (95% CI, 1.09-1.23).

Dr. Shmagel noted that the retrospective nature of the study and the midwestern cohort may mean the results are not generalizable to other populations and that larger randomized trials should be considered. “Certainly, a larger study with more events would be needed,” she said.

This study was funded by the University of Minnesota. Dr. Shmagel reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kerski M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10), Abstract 1805.

ATLANTA – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were more at risk of postoperative infection because of a high Charlson Comorbidity Index or longer surgery time than because of perioperative use of antirheumatic medications, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Anna Shmagel, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 154 patients with seropositive RA who were in the Fairview Health System between Jan. 2010 and Dec. 2017 and underwent either orthopedic or major organ surgery. The patients were classified based on their use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics alone or in combination, with patients divided into “no DMARD or biologic,” “DMARD but no biologic” and “biologic with or without DMARD” groups.

The question of whether to discontinue antirheumatic medications before surgery is still controversial, with conflicting evidence across studies, Dr. Shmagel said in her presentation. A study by Giles and colleagues found 10 of 91 patients (11%) RA who underwent an orthopedic surgical procedure developed a postoperative infection, with patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors more likely to develop an infection, compared with patients who were not receiving TNF inhibitors (Arthritis Care Res. 2006. doi: 10.1002/art.21841).

However, other studies have challenged that idea, and a 2018 study from Goodman and colleagues raised the issue of whether patients stopping biologics prior to surgery are at increased risk of flares. Of 120 RA patients in their study who underwent total hip or total knee arthroplasty, 75% of patients flared at 6 weeks after surgery. While patients who halted biologics before surgery were more likely to flare, stopping biologics did not predict flaring after surgery (J Rheumatol. 2018. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170366).

“It’s not entirely clear whether these theories are related to what we do with antirheumatic medications, but we felt that it was pertinent to further study this question.” Dr. Shmagel said.

Dr. Shmagel and colleagues examined the 30-day infection rate of RA patients postoperatively, with 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality rates as secondary outcomes. Patient-associated factors such as age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income, and use of corticosteroids were analyzed as covariates in addition to factors involving surgery such as expected surgery time, perioperative antibiotic use, and whether the procedure was elective or emergency surgery.

A majority of the patients in the study across all groups were white women about 63 years old with a body mass index above 30 kg/m² and almost all undergoing electing surgery compared with emergency surgery. While patients in each group were similar with regard to Charlson Comorbidity Index, expected length of surgery, and percentage of patients undergoing elective surgery, patients in the biologic with or without DMARD group had a significantly lower median income level compared with those in the other two groups (P = .01).

Overall, there were 244 surgeries in 154 patients, with 117 surgeries in the group not receiving biologics or DMARDs, 95 surgeries in the group receiving DMARDs but no biologics, and 32 surgeries in the biologics with or without DMARD group. In the DMARD but no biologics group, most patients were receiving methotrexate (45%) or hydroxychloroquine (44%), while the most common biologics in the biologics with or without DMARD group were infliximab (25%), tocilizumab (19%), abatacept (16%), etanercept (13%), rituximab (9%), and tofacitinib (9%).

There was an 11% overall rate of infection, with a similar rate of infection across all groups (P = .09). While there was a higher rate of surgical site infections among patients in the biologics with or without DMARD group (9%) and a higher percentage of urinary tract infections in the no DMARD and no biologics group (4%), the results were not statistically significant. When the rate of infections was examined by type of surgery, there were no significant differences between infections from musculoskeletal surgery (P = .7) and major organ surgery (P = .8).

The overall 30-day readmission rate was 12%, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Although there were five deaths in the study, four deaths were in the group not receiving DMARDs or biologics, and one death was in the biologic with or without DMARD group.

Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index did predict infection risk, with an odds ratio of 1.37 per 1-point increase in the index (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.70). Length of surgery also increased the risk of infection, with an OR of 1.16 per 15-minute increase in surgery time (95% CI, 1.09-1.23).

Dr. Shmagel noted that the retrospective nature of the study and the midwestern cohort may mean the results are not generalizable to other populations and that larger randomized trials should be considered. “Certainly, a larger study with more events would be needed,” she said.

This study was funded by the University of Minnesota. Dr. Shmagel reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kerski M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10), Abstract 1805.

ATLANTA – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were more at risk of postoperative infection because of a high Charlson Comorbidity Index or longer surgery time than because of perioperative use of antirheumatic medications, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Anna Shmagel, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 154 patients with seropositive RA who were in the Fairview Health System between Jan. 2010 and Dec. 2017 and underwent either orthopedic or major organ surgery. The patients were classified based on their use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologics alone or in combination, with patients divided into “no DMARD or biologic,” “DMARD but no biologic” and “biologic with or without DMARD” groups.

The question of whether to discontinue antirheumatic medications before surgery is still controversial, with conflicting evidence across studies, Dr. Shmagel said in her presentation. A study by Giles and colleagues found 10 of 91 patients (11%) RA who underwent an orthopedic surgical procedure developed a postoperative infection, with patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors more likely to develop an infection, compared with patients who were not receiving TNF inhibitors (Arthritis Care Res. 2006. doi: 10.1002/art.21841).

However, other studies have challenged that idea, and a 2018 study from Goodman and colleagues raised the issue of whether patients stopping biologics prior to surgery are at increased risk of flares. Of 120 RA patients in their study who underwent total hip or total knee arthroplasty, 75% of patients flared at 6 weeks after surgery. While patients who halted biologics before surgery were more likely to flare, stopping biologics did not predict flaring after surgery (J Rheumatol. 2018. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170366).

“It’s not entirely clear whether these theories are related to what we do with antirheumatic medications, but we felt that it was pertinent to further study this question.” Dr. Shmagel said.

Dr. Shmagel and colleagues examined the 30-day infection rate of RA patients postoperatively, with 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality rates as secondary outcomes. Patient-associated factors such as age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income, and use of corticosteroids were analyzed as covariates in addition to factors involving surgery such as expected surgery time, perioperative antibiotic use, and whether the procedure was elective or emergency surgery.

A majority of the patients in the study across all groups were white women about 63 years old with a body mass index above 30 kg/m² and almost all undergoing electing surgery compared with emergency surgery. While patients in each group were similar with regard to Charlson Comorbidity Index, expected length of surgery, and percentage of patients undergoing elective surgery, patients in the biologic with or without DMARD group had a significantly lower median income level compared with those in the other two groups (P = .01).

Overall, there were 244 surgeries in 154 patients, with 117 surgeries in the group not receiving biologics or DMARDs, 95 surgeries in the group receiving DMARDs but no biologics, and 32 surgeries in the biologics with or without DMARD group. In the DMARD but no biologics group, most patients were receiving methotrexate (45%) or hydroxychloroquine (44%), while the most common biologics in the biologics with or without DMARD group were infliximab (25%), tocilizumab (19%), abatacept (16%), etanercept (13%), rituximab (9%), and tofacitinib (9%).

There was an 11% overall rate of infection, with a similar rate of infection across all groups (P = .09). While there was a higher rate of surgical site infections among patients in the biologics with or without DMARD group (9%) and a higher percentage of urinary tract infections in the no DMARD and no biologics group (4%), the results were not statistically significant. When the rate of infections was examined by type of surgery, there were no significant differences between infections from musculoskeletal surgery (P = .7) and major organ surgery (P = .8).

The overall 30-day readmission rate was 12%, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Although there were five deaths in the study, four deaths were in the group not receiving DMARDs or biologics, and one death was in the biologic with or without DMARD group.

Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index did predict infection risk, with an odds ratio of 1.37 per 1-point increase in the index (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.70). Length of surgery also increased the risk of infection, with an OR of 1.16 per 15-minute increase in surgery time (95% CI, 1.09-1.23).

Dr. Shmagel noted that the retrospective nature of the study and the midwestern cohort may mean the results are not generalizable to other populations and that larger randomized trials should be considered. “Certainly, a larger study with more events would be needed,” she said.

This study was funded by the University of Minnesota. Dr. Shmagel reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kerski M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10), Abstract 1805.

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – A proprietary oral fixed-dose, triple-antibiotic combination pill offers a promising new approach to the treatment of Crohn’s disease, David Y. Graham, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In the phase 3 MAP US trial, patients with Crohn’s disease who were randomized to the fixed-dose combination of 45 mg rifabutin, 95 mg clarithromycin, and 10 mg clofazimine, known for now as RHB-104, experienced significantly higher rates of clinical remission and improvement in inflammation as assessed endoscopically and via biomarkers, compared with placebo-treated controls, reported Dr. Graham, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

RHB-104 is effective against Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis (MAP) – and therein hangs a tale.

“MAP has been considered as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease since the disease was described by Crohn in 1932,” the gastroenterologist noted. “These randomized trial data provide further evidence suggesting an important role for MAP or similar microorganisms in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.”

For Dr. Graham, this is a case of deja vu all over again. More than a quarter century ago he was lead author of a highly influential randomized, controlled trial which established that treatment with antibiotics directed against Helicobacter pylori cured peptic ulcer disease. As such, he became internationally recognized as a key figure in the resultant revolution in peptic ulcer treatment. He hears an echo of that earlier transformative change in the MAP US results.

“This is either an additional therapy or it’s the beginning of a paradigm shift. I mean, I see this as we’re standing at the same place now as we were standing with Helicobacter pylori 30 years ago, when the question was: Have we found something that we can eradicate and change the natural history of the disease and cure it? You can say this [MAP-directed therapy] is going in that direction, but it certainly hasn’t gotten to the point of proof yet. The results have to be reproduced,” he said.

The MAP US trial included 331 patients with moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease at 92 sites who had failed to achieve an adequate response with conventional therapies. Participants were randomized double blind to twice-daily RHB-104 or placebo for 52 weeks. Those not in remission at 26 weeks could opt for open-label RHB-104. Background concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and immunosuppressives was permitted.

The primary outcome was clinical remission as defined by a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score below 150 at week 26. This was achieved in 36.7% of the active treatment group and 23% of controls, a highly significant difference. The clinical remission rates at week 16 were 42.2% and 29.1%, respectively. At week 26, 44% of RHB-104-treated patients had achieved at least a 100-point reduction in CDAI score, compared with baseline, as did 30.9% of controls. The key symptom score provided by the sum of the abdominal pain and bowel movement components of the CDAI was significantly lower in the RHB-104 group than in controls from week 16 on.

The remission rate at week 26 in the group on RHB-104 was similarly favorable regardless of whether or not they were on anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy.

“This suggests that RHB-104 can be used effectively and safely as an adjunct treatment to other medications to enhance the response to medical therapy,” according to Dr. Graham, who was principal investigator for MAP US.

The composite endpoint of clinical remission plus at least a 50% reduction from baseline in fecal calprotectin or C-reactive protein was achieved in 21.1% of the RHB-104 group and 9.1% of controls at week 26, and by 16.9% on RHB-104 and 7.9% on placebo at week 52.

In the 35 patients who underwent endoscopy at week 26, a 50% or greater reduction in the Simple Endoscopic Score in Crohn’s Disease was documented in 28.6% of patients on RHB-104 versus 4.8% of controls.

Durable remission, defined as a CDAI score below 150 at all study visits from week 16 to week 52, was achieved in 18.7% of the RHB-104 group, compared with 8.5% of controls.

The side effect profiles of RHB-104 and placebo were similar, with no serious adverse events recorded in the 52-week study. An increase in the QT interval on ECG was noted in the RHB-104 group from week 4 on, but it wasn’t associated with any clinical findings. Further study of this ECG finding is underway.

Several audience members rose to urge caution in interpreting the MAP US data.

“We must adhere to Koch’s postulates before we make conclusions about causative agents of an infectious disease, and I didn’t see those data here. So I look forward to a future presentation that shares that,” one gastroenterologist commented.

“I haven’t seen any data here that shows Mycobacterium was present in these patients,” noted another.

Dr. Graham replied that MAP US was a hypothesis-driven clinical trial: Crohn’s disease has much in common with an inflammatory bowel disease occurring in ruminant animals, where RHB-104 has shown treatment efficacy.

“This is a Mycobacterium avium organism, so it’s not something you’re going to cure in 2 weeks or 2 months. But the question is, do you have an effect on the disease, and the answer in MAP US was unquestionably yes. It’s very positive data to further pursue the hypothesis, but the study doesn’t provide a definitive answer,” he said.

Dr. Graham reported serving as a consultant to RedHill Biopharma, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

BALTIMORE – The rates of breastfeeding initiation and adherence are lower in women with epilepsy, compared with the general population, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Seizure control, education by the treating neurologist, and postpartum lactation consultative support are associated with adherence to breastfeeding, said the researchers.

©Lev Olkha/iStockphoto.com

“We need to understand and address the challenges that women with epilepsy face beyond seizure control and medication management when they are being seen by various health care providers to ensure the best quality of life for them and their babies,” Abrar Al-Faraj, MD, instructor of neurology at Boston University, said in a press release. “The strong efforts to advocate for breastfeeding in the general population should include women with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.”
 

A retrospective study of women who underwent pregnancy

Data have established the benefits of breastfeeding in the general population. Recent studies have confirmed that for women with epilepsy and their children, breastfeeding is safe and may provide neurodevelopmental benefits. Data also indicate, however, that rates of breastfeeding are significantly lower in women with epilepsy than in the general population. Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues sought to compare the rates of initiation of and adherence to breastfeeding in women with epilepsy with those in healthy controls. They also intended to identify the factors that affect breastfeeding in women with epilepsy and assess the influence of support systems (e.g., lactation consult services) on breastfeeding.

The investigators retrospectively studied 102 women with epilepsy who were treated at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) Epilepsy Clinic and underwent pregnancies between 2009 and 2018. They compared these women to 113 healthy controls without epilepsy who were treated at the obstetrical service at BIDMC during the same period. Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues reviewed patients’ medical records for demographic information, epilepsy type, degree of seizure control during pregnancy and post partum, number of antiepileptic medications (AEDs), breastfeeding education by providers (i.e., neurologists and epilepsy nurses), lactation consult, and rate of initiation of and adherence to breastfeeding at 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months. The investigators excluded from their analysis patients with other chronic medical conditions, those taking medications other than AEDs that may affect breastfeeding, and those with limited follow-up during pregnancy and post partum.
 

Education and support were correlated with breastfeeding

Participants’ ages ranged from 20 years to 40 years. The rate of breastfeeding initiation was significantly lower in women with epilepsy (51%) than in controls (87%). The rate declined significantly to 38.2% at 6 weeks in women with epilepsy, compared to 76% in controls. The rate of adherence at 3 months was 36.2% in women with epilepsy, and adherence at 6 months was 18.6%.

The reasons for not breastfeeding were known for 17.6% of women with epilepsy. These reasons included fear of AED exposure through breast milk, recommendations by providers (e.g., pediatricians and obstetricians) not to breastfeed, failed breastfeeding attempts because of technical difficulties (e.g., the baby’s inability to latch), and lack of milk supply. Treating neurologists discussed breastfeeding with 52.9% of women with epilepsy, and epilepsy nurses discussed it with 91% of women with epilepsy. Among the 66% of patients who received obstetrical care at BIDMC, 13% of women with epilepsy had lactation consultation post partum, compared with 58% of controls. Breastfeeding education by the treating neurologist was significantly and positively correlated with decision to breastfeed and initiation of breastfeeding. Postpartum lactation consult support was also associated with a significantly higher rate of breastfeeding initiation, adherence at 6 weeks, adherence at 3 months, and adherence at 6 months. Women with well-controlled seizures were more likely to continue breastfeeding at 6 weeks, compared with women with uncontrolled seizures. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in the breastfeeding initiation rate, however, between women with controlled seizures and those with uncontrolled seizures.

“Women with poor seizure control are a particularly vulnerable group and have the greatest need for intervention to improve breastfeeding rates,” said Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues. Focused physician education and support measures such as lactation consultation may be potential interventions to improve the treatment of women with epilepsy, they added. “Further prospective investigations are needed to identify other factors that prevent the decision to initiate or adhere to breastfeeding in women with epilepsy and evaluate interventions that may be implemented as a public health measure to support this vulnerable population.”

The study did not have external funding, and the investigators reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Al-Faraj AO et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.246.

BALTIMORE – The rates of breastfeeding initiation and adherence are lower in women with epilepsy, compared with the general population, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Seizure control, education by the treating neurologist, and postpartum lactation consultative support are associated with adherence to breastfeeding, said the researchers.

©Lev Olkha/iStockphoto.com

“We need to understand and address the challenges that women with epilepsy face beyond seizure control and medication management when they are being seen by various health care providers to ensure the best quality of life for them and their babies,” Abrar Al-Faraj, MD, instructor of neurology at Boston University, said in a press release. “The strong efforts to advocate for breastfeeding in the general population should include women with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.”
 

A retrospective study of women who underwent pregnancy

Data have established the benefits of breastfeeding in the general population. Recent studies have confirmed that for women with epilepsy and their children, breastfeeding is safe and may provide neurodevelopmental benefits. Data also indicate, however, that rates of breastfeeding are significantly lower in women with epilepsy than in the general population. Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues sought to compare the rates of initiation of and adherence to breastfeeding in women with epilepsy with those in healthy controls. They also intended to identify the factors that affect breastfeeding in women with epilepsy and assess the influence of support systems (e.g., lactation consult services) on breastfeeding.

The investigators retrospectively studied 102 women with epilepsy who were treated at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) Epilepsy Clinic and underwent pregnancies between 2009 and 2018. They compared these women to 113 healthy controls without epilepsy who were treated at the obstetrical service at BIDMC during the same period. Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues reviewed patients’ medical records for demographic information, epilepsy type, degree of seizure control during pregnancy and post partum, number of antiepileptic medications (AEDs), breastfeeding education by providers (i.e., neurologists and epilepsy nurses), lactation consult, and rate of initiation of and adherence to breastfeeding at 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months. The investigators excluded from their analysis patients with other chronic medical conditions, those taking medications other than AEDs that may affect breastfeeding, and those with limited follow-up during pregnancy and post partum.
 

Education and support were correlated with breastfeeding

Participants’ ages ranged from 20 years to 40 years. The rate of breastfeeding initiation was significantly lower in women with epilepsy (51%) than in controls (87%). The rate declined significantly to 38.2% at 6 weeks in women with epilepsy, compared to 76% in controls. The rate of adherence at 3 months was 36.2% in women with epilepsy, and adherence at 6 months was 18.6%.

The reasons for not breastfeeding were known for 17.6% of women with epilepsy. These reasons included fear of AED exposure through breast milk, recommendations by providers (e.g., pediatricians and obstetricians) not to breastfeed, failed breastfeeding attempts because of technical difficulties (e.g., the baby’s inability to latch), and lack of milk supply. Treating neurologists discussed breastfeeding with 52.9% of women with epilepsy, and epilepsy nurses discussed it with 91% of women with epilepsy. Among the 66% of patients who received obstetrical care at BIDMC, 13% of women with epilepsy had lactation consultation post partum, compared with 58% of controls. Breastfeeding education by the treating neurologist was significantly and positively correlated with decision to breastfeed and initiation of breastfeeding. Postpartum lactation consult support was also associated with a significantly higher rate of breastfeeding initiation, adherence at 6 weeks, adherence at 3 months, and adherence at 6 months. Women with well-controlled seizures were more likely to continue breastfeeding at 6 weeks, compared with women with uncontrolled seizures. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in the breastfeeding initiation rate, however, between women with controlled seizures and those with uncontrolled seizures.

“Women with poor seizure control are a particularly vulnerable group and have the greatest need for intervention to improve breastfeeding rates,” said Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues. Focused physician education and support measures such as lactation consultation may be potential interventions to improve the treatment of women with epilepsy, they added. “Further prospective investigations are needed to identify other factors that prevent the decision to initiate or adhere to breastfeeding in women with epilepsy and evaluate interventions that may be implemented as a public health measure to support this vulnerable population.”

The study did not have external funding, and the investigators reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Al-Faraj AO et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.246.

BALTIMORE – The rates of breastfeeding initiation and adherence are lower in women with epilepsy, compared with the general population, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. Seizure control, education by the treating neurologist, and postpartum lactation consultative support are associated with adherence to breastfeeding, said the researchers.

©Lev Olkha/iStockphoto.com

“We need to understand and address the challenges that women with epilepsy face beyond seizure control and medication management when they are being seen by various health care providers to ensure the best quality of life for them and their babies,” Abrar Al-Faraj, MD, instructor of neurology at Boston University, said in a press release. “The strong efforts to advocate for breastfeeding in the general population should include women with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.”
 

A retrospective study of women who underwent pregnancy

Data have established the benefits of breastfeeding in the general population. Recent studies have confirmed that for women with epilepsy and their children, breastfeeding is safe and may provide neurodevelopmental benefits. Data also indicate, however, that rates of breastfeeding are significantly lower in women with epilepsy than in the general population. Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues sought to compare the rates of initiation of and adherence to breastfeeding in women with epilepsy with those in healthy controls. They also intended to identify the factors that affect breastfeeding in women with epilepsy and assess the influence of support systems (e.g., lactation consult services) on breastfeeding.

The investigators retrospectively studied 102 women with epilepsy who were treated at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) Epilepsy Clinic and underwent pregnancies between 2009 and 2018. They compared these women to 113 healthy controls without epilepsy who were treated at the obstetrical service at BIDMC during the same period. Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues reviewed patients’ medical records for demographic information, epilepsy type, degree of seizure control during pregnancy and post partum, number of antiepileptic medications (AEDs), breastfeeding education by providers (i.e., neurologists and epilepsy nurses), lactation consult, and rate of initiation of and adherence to breastfeeding at 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months. The investigators excluded from their analysis patients with other chronic medical conditions, those taking medications other than AEDs that may affect breastfeeding, and those with limited follow-up during pregnancy and post partum.
 

Education and support were correlated with breastfeeding

Participants’ ages ranged from 20 years to 40 years. The rate of breastfeeding initiation was significantly lower in women with epilepsy (51%) than in controls (87%). The rate declined significantly to 38.2% at 6 weeks in women with epilepsy, compared to 76% in controls. The rate of adherence at 3 months was 36.2% in women with epilepsy, and adherence at 6 months was 18.6%.

The reasons for not breastfeeding were known for 17.6% of women with epilepsy. These reasons included fear of AED exposure through breast milk, recommendations by providers (e.g., pediatricians and obstetricians) not to breastfeed, failed breastfeeding attempts because of technical difficulties (e.g., the baby’s inability to latch), and lack of milk supply. Treating neurologists discussed breastfeeding with 52.9% of women with epilepsy, and epilepsy nurses discussed it with 91% of women with epilepsy. Among the 66% of patients who received obstetrical care at BIDMC, 13% of women with epilepsy had lactation consultation post partum, compared with 58% of controls. Breastfeeding education by the treating neurologist was significantly and positively correlated with decision to breastfeed and initiation of breastfeeding. Postpartum lactation consult support was also associated with a significantly higher rate of breastfeeding initiation, adherence at 6 weeks, adherence at 3 months, and adherence at 6 months. Women with well-controlled seizures were more likely to continue breastfeeding at 6 weeks, compared with women with uncontrolled seizures. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in the breastfeeding initiation rate, however, between women with controlled seizures and those with uncontrolled seizures.

“Women with poor seizure control are a particularly vulnerable group and have the greatest need for intervention to improve breastfeeding rates,” said Dr. Al-Faraj and colleagues. Focused physician education and support measures such as lactation consultation may be potential interventions to improve the treatment of women with epilepsy, they added. “Further prospective investigations are needed to identify other factors that prevent the decision to initiate or adhere to breastfeeding in women with epilepsy and evaluate interventions that may be implemented as a public health measure to support this vulnerable population.”

The study did not have external funding, and the investigators reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Al-Faraj AO et al. AES 2019, Abstract 1.246.

Classification

Blister beetles are both a scourge and the source of medical cantharidin (Figure 1). The term blister beetle refers to 3 families of the order Coleoptera: Meloidae, Oedemeridae, and Staphylinidae (Figure 2).

Meloidae is the most well-known family of blister beetles, with more than 200 species worldwide identified as a cause of blistering dermatitis.¹ The most notorious is Lytta vesicatoria, also known as the Spanish fly. Although some blister beetles are inconspicuous in appearance, most are brightly colored and easily spotted, making them attractive to small children.² They may be attracted to fluorescent lighting and commonly enter through open windows.³ Blister beetles do not bite or sting; rather, they release cantharidin via hemolymph, an oily yellow substance that is copiously expressed from the leg joints when disturbed by rubbing or pressing.^1,3-5 Blistering also is associated with exposure to the contents of crushed beetles, which is the source of pharmacologic cantharidin.^2,4,6

Oedemeridae are the smallest and least known beetles within the Coleoptera family. They often are called false blister beetles, which is a misnomer. Oedemeridae beetles also produce cantharidin, similar to Meloidae beetles; however, because Oedemeridae beetles are smaller, the vesiculobullous eruptions also are less pronounced.¹

A third well-known family of blister beetles is the Staphylinidae family. Rove beetles (genus Paederus) differ from the Meloidae and Oedemeridae families in that they produce the vesicant pederin rather than cantharidin. Pederin causes a more violent eruption called dermatitis linearis, which often is associated with intense urticaria prior to blistering.¹ Rove beetles are found in moist environments and tend to favor tropical and subtropical climates. They may emerge in large numbers after heavy rainfall.

Clinical Presentation

Blistering dermatitis—caused by exposure to cantharidin (families Meloidae and Oedemeridae) or pederin (genus Paederus)—begins as burning and tingling within minutes of exposure. Bullae later develop, often in a linear fashion, with subsequent bursting and crust formation.^1,3 Secondary infection can occur.⁵ Exposure occurring on the elbows, knees, or mirroring skin folds results in lesions on opposing surfaces that come into contact, otherwise known as kissing lesions.^1,3 Acantholysis of suprabasal keratinocytes can be seen on histologic sections of blisters (Figure 3)^1,7 due to cantharidin activation of the serine/threonine protein phosphatases that cause detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes.^1,8 Washing of exposed sites with soap or alcohol can potentially prevent development of blistering dermatitis; however, lesions usually heal without complication when treated with topical antibiotics.³

If blister beetles are ingested, they can cause poisoning characterized by abdominal pain and hematuria.^1,3,9,10 In fact, blister beetle ingestion by animals consuming baled hay is an important agricultural and economical implication. Several cases of fatal farm animal ingestion resulting in gastrointestinal erosion have been reported.^4,6

Medicinal Properties

Medicinal use of cantharidin has been recorded as early as the 19th century and is believed to have been part of ancient medicinal practices in China, Spain, South Africa, and pre-Columbian America for its vesicant, abortifacient, and supposed aphrodisiac properties.^2,4,8

Toxicity from internal ingestion has been well documented.^1,3,9,10 The Mylabris and Epicauta genera of the family Meloidae, most commonly the Spanish fly, are used for modern extraction of cantharidin. Up to 5% of the dry weight of a blister beetle can be constituted by cantharidin.⁴

Although its use has diminished due to limited availability, cantharidin is still used for treatment of common warts, periungual warts, and molluscum contagiosum. It is a favorable choice for treating pediatric patients because of the tolerability and painlessness of application. Due to its acantholytic properties, warts generally slough with the cantharidin-induced blister.¹¹

In recent years, cantharidin has been studied for its anticancer properties. It has been shown to weaken cancer cell antioxidant properties by interfering with glutathione-related enzymes, thus inducing oxidative damage. Additionally, cantharidin is associated with decreased mitochondrial cytochrome C and increased cytosolic cytochrome C, an important signal for apoptosis.¹² Furthermore, cantharidin recently was shown to increase expression of proapoptotic proteins and decrease expression of antiapoptotic proteins causing cell death in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, making it a potential anticancer treatment.¹³

Conclusion

Blister beetles, long known for their production of vesicant agents, are both a cause of as well as a potential treatment of dermatologic disease. The blistering associated with exposure to a disturbed beetle generally is mild and heals without scarring if vital areas such as the eyelids are not affected.

Classification

Blister beetles are both a scourge and the source of medical cantharidin (Figure 1). The term blister beetle refers to 3 families of the order Coleoptera: Meloidae, Oedemeridae, and Staphylinidae (Figure 2).

Meloidae is the most well-known family of blister beetles, with more than 200 species worldwide identified as a cause of blistering dermatitis.¹ The most notorious is Lytta vesicatoria, also known as the Spanish fly. Although some blister beetles are inconspicuous in appearance, most are brightly colored and easily spotted, making them attractive to small children.² They may be attracted to fluorescent lighting and commonly enter through open windows.³ Blister beetles do not bite or sting; rather, they release cantharidin via hemolymph, an oily yellow substance that is copiously expressed from the leg joints when disturbed by rubbing or pressing.^1,3-5 Blistering also is associated with exposure to the contents of crushed beetles, which is the source of pharmacologic cantharidin.^2,4,6

Oedemeridae are the smallest and least known beetles within the Coleoptera family. They often are called false blister beetles, which is a misnomer. Oedemeridae beetles also produce cantharidin, similar to Meloidae beetles; however, because Oedemeridae beetles are smaller, the vesiculobullous eruptions also are less pronounced.¹

A third well-known family of blister beetles is the Staphylinidae family. Rove beetles (genus Paederus) differ from the Meloidae and Oedemeridae families in that they produce the vesicant pederin rather than cantharidin. Pederin causes a more violent eruption called dermatitis linearis, which often is associated with intense urticaria prior to blistering.¹ Rove beetles are found in moist environments and tend to favor tropical and subtropical climates. They may emerge in large numbers after heavy rainfall.

Clinical Presentation

Blistering dermatitis—caused by exposure to cantharidin (families Meloidae and Oedemeridae) or pederin (genus Paederus)—begins as burning and tingling within minutes of exposure. Bullae later develop, often in a linear fashion, with subsequent bursting and crust formation.^1,3 Secondary infection can occur.⁵ Exposure occurring on the elbows, knees, or mirroring skin folds results in lesions on opposing surfaces that come into contact, otherwise known as kissing lesions.^1,3 Acantholysis of suprabasal keratinocytes can be seen on histologic sections of blisters (Figure 3)^1,7 due to cantharidin activation of the serine/threonine protein phosphatases that cause detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes.^1,8 Washing of exposed sites with soap or alcohol can potentially prevent development of blistering dermatitis; however, lesions usually heal without complication when treated with topical antibiotics.³

If blister beetles are ingested, they can cause poisoning characterized by abdominal pain and hematuria.^1,3,9,10 In fact, blister beetle ingestion by animals consuming baled hay is an important agricultural and economical implication. Several cases of fatal farm animal ingestion resulting in gastrointestinal erosion have been reported.^4,6

Medicinal Properties

Medicinal use of cantharidin has been recorded as early as the 19th century and is believed to have been part of ancient medicinal practices in China, Spain, South Africa, and pre-Columbian America for its vesicant, abortifacient, and supposed aphrodisiac properties.^2,4,8

Toxicity from internal ingestion has been well documented.^1,3,9,10 The Mylabris and Epicauta genera of the family Meloidae, most commonly the Spanish fly, are used for modern extraction of cantharidin. Up to 5% of the dry weight of a blister beetle can be constituted by cantharidin.⁴

Although its use has diminished due to limited availability, cantharidin is still used for treatment of common warts, periungual warts, and molluscum contagiosum. It is a favorable choice for treating pediatric patients because of the tolerability and painlessness of application. Due to its acantholytic properties, warts generally slough with the cantharidin-induced blister.¹¹

In recent years, cantharidin has been studied for its anticancer properties. It has been shown to weaken cancer cell antioxidant properties by interfering with glutathione-related enzymes, thus inducing oxidative damage. Additionally, cantharidin is associated with decreased mitochondrial cytochrome C and increased cytosolic cytochrome C, an important signal for apoptosis.¹² Furthermore, cantharidin recently was shown to increase expression of proapoptotic proteins and decrease expression of antiapoptotic proteins causing cell death in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, making it a potential anticancer treatment.¹³

Conclusion

Blister beetles, long known for their production of vesicant agents, are both a cause of as well as a potential treatment of dermatologic disease. The blistering associated with exposure to a disturbed beetle generally is mild and heals without scarring if vital areas such as the eyelids are not affected.

Classification

Blister beetles are both a scourge and the source of medical cantharidin (Figure 1). The term blister beetle refers to 3 families of the order Coleoptera: Meloidae, Oedemeridae, and Staphylinidae (Figure 2).

Meloidae is the most well-known family of blister beetles, with more than 200 species worldwide identified as a cause of blistering dermatitis.¹ The most notorious is Lytta vesicatoria, also known as the Spanish fly. Although some blister beetles are inconspicuous in appearance, most are brightly colored and easily spotted, making them attractive to small children.² They may be attracted to fluorescent lighting and commonly enter through open windows.³ Blister beetles do not bite or sting; rather, they release cantharidin via hemolymph, an oily yellow substance that is copiously expressed from the leg joints when disturbed by rubbing or pressing.^1,3-5 Blistering also is associated with exposure to the contents of crushed beetles, which is the source of pharmacologic cantharidin.^2,4,6

Oedemeridae are the smallest and least known beetles within the Coleoptera family. They often are called false blister beetles, which is a misnomer. Oedemeridae beetles also produce cantharidin, similar to Meloidae beetles; however, because Oedemeridae beetles are smaller, the vesiculobullous eruptions also are less pronounced.¹

A third well-known family of blister beetles is the Staphylinidae family. Rove beetles (genus Paederus) differ from the Meloidae and Oedemeridae families in that they produce the vesicant pederin rather than cantharidin. Pederin causes a more violent eruption called dermatitis linearis, which often is associated with intense urticaria prior to blistering.¹ Rove beetles are found in moist environments and tend to favor tropical and subtropical climates. They may emerge in large numbers after heavy rainfall.

Clinical Presentation

Blistering dermatitis—caused by exposure to cantharidin (families Meloidae and Oedemeridae) or pederin (genus Paederus)—begins as burning and tingling within minutes of exposure. Bullae later develop, often in a linear fashion, with subsequent bursting and crust formation.^1,3 Secondary infection can occur.⁵ Exposure occurring on the elbows, knees, or mirroring skin folds results in lesions on opposing surfaces that come into contact, otherwise known as kissing lesions.^1,3 Acantholysis of suprabasal keratinocytes can be seen on histologic sections of blisters (Figure 3)^1,7 due to cantharidin activation of the serine/threonine protein phosphatases that cause detachment of tonofilaments from desmosomes.^1,8 Washing of exposed sites with soap or alcohol can potentially prevent development of blistering dermatitis; however, lesions usually heal without complication when treated with topical antibiotics.³

If blister beetles are ingested, they can cause poisoning characterized by abdominal pain and hematuria.^1,3,9,10 In fact, blister beetle ingestion by animals consuming baled hay is an important agricultural and economical implication. Several cases of fatal farm animal ingestion resulting in gastrointestinal erosion have been reported.^4,6

Medicinal Properties

Medicinal use of cantharidin has been recorded as early as the 19th century and is believed to have been part of ancient medicinal practices in China, Spain, South Africa, and pre-Columbian America for its vesicant, abortifacient, and supposed aphrodisiac properties.^2,4,8

Toxicity from internal ingestion has been well documented.^1,3,9,10 The Mylabris and Epicauta genera of the family Meloidae, most commonly the Spanish fly, are used for modern extraction of cantharidin. Up to 5% of the dry weight of a blister beetle can be constituted by cantharidin.⁴

Although its use has diminished due to limited availability, cantharidin is still used for treatment of common warts, periungual warts, and molluscum contagiosum. It is a favorable choice for treating pediatric patients because of the tolerability and painlessness of application. Due to its acantholytic properties, warts generally slough with the cantharidin-induced blister.¹¹

In recent years, cantharidin has been studied for its anticancer properties. It has been shown to weaken cancer cell antioxidant properties by interfering with glutathione-related enzymes, thus inducing oxidative damage. Additionally, cantharidin is associated with decreased mitochondrial cytochrome C and increased cytosolic cytochrome C, an important signal for apoptosis.¹² Furthermore, cantharidin recently was shown to increase expression of proapoptotic proteins and decrease expression of antiapoptotic proteins causing cell death in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, making it a potential anticancer treatment.¹³

Conclusion

Blister beetles, long known for their production of vesicant agents, are both a cause of as well as a potential treatment of dermatologic disease. The blistering associated with exposure to a disturbed beetle generally is mild and heals without scarring if vital areas such as the eyelids are not affected.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Another Match Day is approaching. Students find themselves paying more each year to apply to one of the most competitive fields, while program directors struggle to sort through hundreds of stellar applications to invite a handful of candidates for interviews. Estimates place the cost of the application process at $5 million in total for all medical school seniors, or roughly $10,000 per applicant.¹ Approximately 60% of these costs occur during the interview process.^1,2 In an era in which students routinely graduate medical school with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, these costs must be addressed as soon as possible.

This problem is not unique to dermatology; otolaryngology, another especially competitive field, has considered various changes to the match process based on applicants’ feedback.³ As an applicant during the 2018-2019 match cycle for dermatology, I offer 2 solutions that are a starting point aimed at streamlining the application process for both applicants and program directors: regional interview coordination and a cap on the number of residency applications.

Regional Interview Coordination

Regional interview coordination would reduce travel costs and facilitate greater predictability in scheduling clinical rotations. In the current climate, it is not uncommon for applicants to make multiple cross-country round trips in the same week, especially given that the interview season for dermatology, including interviews for preliminary programs, now ranges from mid-October to early February. Although affluent applicants may not be concerned with financial costs of frequent travel, all applicants face travel inconveniences that could be mitigated through regional coordination. For example, an applicant invited to multiple interviews in the New York City area could reserve a room in a single hotel over a period of several days. During each interview day, he/she could travel back and forth from that accommodation to each institution without needing to bring luggage, worrying about reaching the airport on time, or missing a pre-interview dinner at a program in a faraway city.

Given the amount of coordination required among programs, it may lead to more positive working relationships among regional dermatology programs. One limitation of this approach is that competitive programs may be unwilling to cooperate. If even one program deviates from the interview time frame, it reduces the incentive for others to participate. Programs must be willing to sacrifice short-term autonomy in interview scheduling for their long-term shared interest in reducing the application burden for students, which is known as a commitment problem in game theory, and could be addressed through joint decision-making that incorporates the time frame preferences of all programs as well as binding commitments on interview dates that are decided before the process begins.⁴ Another limitation is that inclement weather could affect all regional programs simultaneously. In this case, offering interviews via video conference for affected students may be a solution.

Capping the Number of Applications

A second method of reducing interview costs would be capping the number of applications. Although matched seniors applied to a median of 72 programs, the Association of American Medical Colleges suggests that dermatology applicants can maximize their return on investment (ie, ratio of interviews to applications) by sending 35 to 55 applications depending on US Medical Licensing Examination scores. Attending more than 10 interviews does not meaningfully improve the chance of matching.^5,6

Programs have limited capacity for interviews and must judiciously allocate invitations based solely on the information provided through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Given the competitiveness of dermatology, applicants usually will accept every interview invitation. Therefore, applicants who are not genuinely interested in a program may crowd out others who are interested. In a survey of otolaryngology applicants (N=150), 90.6% of respondents admitted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest, simply to increase their chance of matching.³ Capping application numbers would force students to apply more selectively and enable residencies to gauge students’ true interest more effectively. In contrast to regional interview coordination, this policy change would be easy to enforce. It also may be popular; nearly two-thirds of otolaryngology applicants agreed to a hypothetical cap on residency applications to reduce the burden on students and programs.³

An alternative to a hard cap on applications could be restructuring the ERAS application fee to incentivize students to apply to fewer programs. For example, a flat fee might cover application numbers up to the point of diminishing returns, after which the price per application could increase exponentially. This approach would have a similar effect of a hard cap and cause many students to apply to fewer programs; however, one notable drawback is that highly affluent applicants would simply absorb the extra cost and still gain a competitive advantage in applying to more programs, which might further decrease the number of lower-income individuals successfully matching into dermatology.

A benefit of decreased application numbers to program directors would be giving them more time to conduct a holistic review of applicants, rather than attempting to weed out candidates through arbitrary cutoffs for US Medical Licensing Examination scores or Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership. The ERAS could allow applicants the option of stating preferences for geographic regions, desired fellowships, areas of research interest, and other intangible metrics. Selection committees could filter their candidate search by different variables and then look at each candidate holistically.

Limitations of capping application numbers include the risk that such a cap would harm less-competitive applicants while failing to address the primary cost drivers (ie, travel costs). The specific cap number would be controversial and may need to be adjusted higher for special cases such as couples matching and international applicants, thus making a cap seem arbitrary.

Final Thoughts

The dermatology residency match can be streamlined to the benefit of both applicants and selection committees. Regional interview coordination would reduce both financial and logistical barriers for applicants but may be difficult to enforce without cooperation from multiple programs. Capping the number of applications, either through a hard cap or an increased financial barrier, would be relatively easy to enforce and might empower selection committees to conduct more detailed, holistic reviews of applicants; however, certain types of applicants may find the application limits detrimental to their chances of matching. These policy recommendations are meant to be a starting point for discussion. Streamlining the application process is critical to improving the diversity of dermatology residencies.

Certain types of oral antibiotics seem to be associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease with a delay that is consistent with the proposed duration of a prodromal period, according to a report published in Movement Disorders. Associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics and those that act against anaerobic bacteria and fungi. The timing of antibiotic exposure also seemed to matter.

In a nationwide case-control study, Finnish researchers compared data on antibiotic use in 13,976 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease between 1998 and 2014 with antibiotic-use data from 40,697 controls. The strongest connection with Parkinson’s disease risk was found for oral exposure to macrolides and lincosamides (adjusted odds ratio up to 1.416). After correction for multiple comparisons, exposure to antianaerobics and tetracyclines 10-15 years before the index date, and antifungal medications 1-5 years before the index date were positively associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. In post hoc analyses, further positive associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Tuomas H. Mertsalmi, MD, from the Helsinki University Hospital and coauthors reported that this was the first study to explore a possible connection between antimicrobial use and Parkinson’s disease.

“In Parkinson’s disease, several studies have described alterations of gut microbiota composition, and changes in fecal microbiota abundance have been found to be associated with gastrointestinal and motor symptoms,” they wrote.

Commenting on the delay between the exposure and diagnosis for the most strongly associated antimicrobials, the authors noted that this 10-15 year lag was comparable with what has been found between the peripheral initiation of Parkinson’s disease and its motor manifestation.

“This would also explain the lack of association between antibiotic exposure 1-5 years before index date – if antibiotic exposure could induce or contribute to the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease in the gastrointestinal tract, it would probably take several years before the clinical manifestation of Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.

With regards to the association seen for sulfonamides and trimethoprim – which was 1-5 years before the index date – they speculated this could reflect treatment for urinary tract infections, which individuals with Parkinson’s disease might be more susceptible to in the prodromal phase of the disease.

The authors noted that infectious disease has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease, and that their analysis did not include information about why the antimicrobial agents were prescribed. However, they pointed out that the associations were only for certain antibiotic classes, which makes it unlikely that the association was related to greater burden of infectious disease among individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The pattern of associations supports the hypothesis that effects on gut microbiota could link antibiotics to Parkinson’s disease. “The link between antibiotic exposure and Parkinson’s disease fits the current view that in a significant proportion of patients the pathology of Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut, possibly related to microbial changes, years before the onset of typical Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms such as slowness, muscle stiffness, and shaking of the extremities. It was known that bacterial composition of the intestine in patients with Parkinson’s disease is abnormal, but the cause is unclear. Our results suggest that some commonly used antibiotics, which are known to strongly influence the gut microbiota, could be a predisposing factor,” said lead investigator Filip Scheperjans, MD, PhD, from the department of neurology at Helsinki University Hospital.

The findings may have implications for antibiotic prescribing practices in the future, said Dr. Scheperjans. “In addition to the problem of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial prescribing should also take into account their potentially long-lasting effects on the gut microbiome and the development of certain diseases.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Parkinson Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Maire Taponen Foundation, and the Academy of Finland. One author declared relevant patents and his position as founder and chief executive of a private company. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mertsalmi TH et al. Mov Disord. 2019 Nov 18. doi: 10.1002/mds.27924.

Certain types of oral antibiotics seem to be associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease with a delay that is consistent with the proposed duration of a prodromal period, according to a report published in Movement Disorders. Associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics and those that act against anaerobic bacteria and fungi. The timing of antibiotic exposure also seemed to matter.

In a nationwide case-control study, Finnish researchers compared data on antibiotic use in 13,976 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease between 1998 and 2014 with antibiotic-use data from 40,697 controls. The strongest connection with Parkinson’s disease risk was found for oral exposure to macrolides and lincosamides (adjusted odds ratio up to 1.416). After correction for multiple comparisons, exposure to antianaerobics and tetracyclines 10-15 years before the index date, and antifungal medications 1-5 years before the index date were positively associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. In post hoc analyses, further positive associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Tuomas H. Mertsalmi, MD, from the Helsinki University Hospital and coauthors reported that this was the first study to explore a possible connection between antimicrobial use and Parkinson’s disease.

“In Parkinson’s disease, several studies have described alterations of gut microbiota composition, and changes in fecal microbiota abundance have been found to be associated with gastrointestinal and motor symptoms,” they wrote.

Commenting on the delay between the exposure and diagnosis for the most strongly associated antimicrobials, the authors noted that this 10-15 year lag was comparable with what has been found between the peripheral initiation of Parkinson’s disease and its motor manifestation.

“This would also explain the lack of association between antibiotic exposure 1-5 years before index date – if antibiotic exposure could induce or contribute to the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease in the gastrointestinal tract, it would probably take several years before the clinical manifestation of Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.

With regards to the association seen for sulfonamides and trimethoprim – which was 1-5 years before the index date – they speculated this could reflect treatment for urinary tract infections, which individuals with Parkinson’s disease might be more susceptible to in the prodromal phase of the disease.

The authors noted that infectious disease has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease, and that their analysis did not include information about why the antimicrobial agents were prescribed. However, they pointed out that the associations were only for certain antibiotic classes, which makes it unlikely that the association was related to greater burden of infectious disease among individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The pattern of associations supports the hypothesis that effects on gut microbiota could link antibiotics to Parkinson’s disease. “The link between antibiotic exposure and Parkinson’s disease fits the current view that in a significant proportion of patients the pathology of Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut, possibly related to microbial changes, years before the onset of typical Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms such as slowness, muscle stiffness, and shaking of the extremities. It was known that bacterial composition of the intestine in patients with Parkinson’s disease is abnormal, but the cause is unclear. Our results suggest that some commonly used antibiotics, which are known to strongly influence the gut microbiota, could be a predisposing factor,” said lead investigator Filip Scheperjans, MD, PhD, from the department of neurology at Helsinki University Hospital.

The findings may have implications for antibiotic prescribing practices in the future, said Dr. Scheperjans. “In addition to the problem of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial prescribing should also take into account their potentially long-lasting effects on the gut microbiome and the development of certain diseases.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Parkinson Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Maire Taponen Foundation, and the Academy of Finland. One author declared relevant patents and his position as founder and chief executive of a private company. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mertsalmi TH et al. Mov Disord. 2019 Nov 18. doi: 10.1002/mds.27924.

Certain types of oral antibiotics seem to be associated with an elevated risk of Parkinson’s disease with a delay that is consistent with the proposed duration of a prodromal period, according to a report published in Movement Disorders. Associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics and those that act against anaerobic bacteria and fungi. The timing of antibiotic exposure also seemed to matter.

In a nationwide case-control study, Finnish researchers compared data on antibiotic use in 13,976 individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease between 1998 and 2014 with antibiotic-use data from 40,697 controls. The strongest connection with Parkinson’s disease risk was found for oral exposure to macrolides and lincosamides (adjusted odds ratio up to 1.416). After correction for multiple comparisons, exposure to antianaerobics and tetracyclines 10-15 years before the index date, and antifungal medications 1-5 years before the index date were positively associated with Parkinson’s disease risk. In post hoc analyses, further positive associations were found for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Tuomas H. Mertsalmi, MD, from the Helsinki University Hospital and coauthors reported that this was the first study to explore a possible connection between antimicrobial use and Parkinson’s disease.

“In Parkinson’s disease, several studies have described alterations of gut microbiota composition, and changes in fecal microbiota abundance have been found to be associated with gastrointestinal and motor symptoms,” they wrote.

Commenting on the delay between the exposure and diagnosis for the most strongly associated antimicrobials, the authors noted that this 10-15 year lag was comparable with what has been found between the peripheral initiation of Parkinson’s disease and its motor manifestation.

“This would also explain the lack of association between antibiotic exposure 1-5 years before index date – if antibiotic exposure could induce or contribute to the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease in the gastrointestinal tract, it would probably take several years before the clinical manifestation of Parkinson’s disease,” they wrote.

With regards to the association seen for sulfonamides and trimethoprim – which was 1-5 years before the index date – they speculated this could reflect treatment for urinary tract infections, which individuals with Parkinson’s disease might be more susceptible to in the prodromal phase of the disease.

The authors noted that infectious disease has also been associated with Parkinson’s disease, and that their analysis did not include information about why the antimicrobial agents were prescribed. However, they pointed out that the associations were only for certain antibiotic classes, which makes it unlikely that the association was related to greater burden of infectious disease among individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The pattern of associations supports the hypothesis that effects on gut microbiota could link antibiotics to Parkinson’s disease. “The link between antibiotic exposure and Parkinson’s disease fits the current view that in a significant proportion of patients the pathology of Parkinson’s disease may originate in the gut, possibly related to microbial changes, years before the onset of typical Parkinson’s disease motor symptoms such as slowness, muscle stiffness, and shaking of the extremities. It was known that bacterial composition of the intestine in patients with Parkinson’s disease is abnormal, but the cause is unclear. Our results suggest that some commonly used antibiotics, which are known to strongly influence the gut microbiota, could be a predisposing factor,” said lead investigator Filip Scheperjans, MD, PhD, from the department of neurology at Helsinki University Hospital.

The findings may have implications for antibiotic prescribing practices in the future, said Dr. Scheperjans. “In addition to the problem of antibiotic resistance, antimicrobial prescribing should also take into account their potentially long-lasting effects on the gut microbiome and the development of certain diseases.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Parkinson Foundation, the Finnish Medical Foundation, the Maire Taponen Foundation, and the Academy of Finland. One author declared relevant patents and his position as founder and chief executive of a private company. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mertsalmi TH et al. Mov Disord. 2019 Nov 18. doi: 10.1002/mds.27924.

As many hospitalists know, a frequently deployed approach to quality improvement (QI) is the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle method. But it comes with challenges, according to a recent paper in BMJ Quality & Safety.

“There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by frontline teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use,” according to the authors. They used document analysis and interviews to review 421 PDSA cycles, tracking fidelity over three annual rounds of projects.

The researchers found that modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred, but overall fidelity was low.

“Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice,” the authors reported. “These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand, that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA, and that PDSA is easy to apply.”

The study describes several strategies to help improve PDSA cycle fidelity: different project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support, and investment in training quality improvement support staff. “The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working,” the authors concluded.

Reference

1. McNicholas C et al. Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan-Do-Study–Act cycle fidelity: A retrospective mixed-methods study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605.

As many hospitalists know, a frequently deployed approach to quality improvement (QI) is the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle method. But it comes with challenges, according to a recent paper in BMJ Quality & Safety.

“There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by frontline teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use,” according to the authors. They used document analysis and interviews to review 421 PDSA cycles, tracking fidelity over three annual rounds of projects.

The researchers found that modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred, but overall fidelity was low.

“Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice,” the authors reported. “These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand, that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA, and that PDSA is easy to apply.”

The study describes several strategies to help improve PDSA cycle fidelity: different project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support, and investment in training quality improvement support staff. “The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working,” the authors concluded.

Reference

1. McNicholas C et al. Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan-Do-Study–Act cycle fidelity: A retrospective mixed-methods study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605.

As many hospitalists know, a frequently deployed approach to quality improvement (QI) is the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle method. But it comes with challenges, according to a recent paper in BMJ Quality & Safety.

“There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by frontline teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use,” according to the authors. They used document analysis and interviews to review 421 PDSA cycles, tracking fidelity over three annual rounds of projects.

The researchers found that modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred, but overall fidelity was low.

“Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice,” the authors reported. “These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand, that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA, and that PDSA is easy to apply.”

The study describes several strategies to help improve PDSA cycle fidelity: different project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support, and investment in training quality improvement support staff. “The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working,” the authors concluded.

Reference

1. McNicholas C et al. Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve Plan-Do-Study–Act cycle fidelity: A retrospective mixed-methods study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605.

Julia Brennan sings about inner demons. They just won’t go away and they don’t play fair with angels. We have marveled at the miracles of fecal microbiome transplants (FMT), but this month we read about an inner demon. Two patients developed bacteremia from extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli transmitted during FMT from stool derived from a single donor. One patient, with cirrhosis, who received FMT as part of a trial to treat hepatic encephalopathy, recovered. A second patient with myelodysplastic syndrome underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and received FMT as part of a phase 2 trial. This severely immunocompromised patient succumbed to sepsis related to the E. coli bacteremia. Both organisms were genetically traced to the donor stool. The AGA has NIH funding to develop and maintain an FMT registry (see https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30088-4/pdf) so we can understand long-term risks and benefits.

These rare experiences will lead to increased scrutiny and likely further FDA regulations. Gastroenterologists should be careful about choosing patients for FMT.

This month, we again feature an article about incorporating telehealth into your practice – this month’s article highlights the potential for private practices to incorporate this emerging technology. There are interesting articles about treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, acute liver failure, and postcolonoscopy interval cancers. Finally, we are cautioned about the vulnerability of our biosimilar market. This market may wither despite the great potential to reduce therapeutic costs.

Last week, I taught an undergraduate course about health care economics. After recounting current challenges, one student said, “I am a first-year medical student, what should I do?” I was caught off guard. The future is too overwhelming. As we enter the 12-month countdown to a national election, I would suggest that we continue to advocate for our patients and educate our political leaders about verifiable root causes of our major problems. Despite current antipathy to science and data, we are scientists and eventually truth will prevail. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Julia Brennan sings about inner demons. They just won’t go away and they don’t play fair with angels. We have marveled at the miracles of fecal microbiome transplants (FMT), but this month we read about an inner demon. Two patients developed bacteremia from extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli transmitted during FMT from stool derived from a single donor. One patient, with cirrhosis, who received FMT as part of a trial to treat hepatic encephalopathy, recovered. A second patient with myelodysplastic syndrome underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and received FMT as part of a phase 2 trial. This severely immunocompromised patient succumbed to sepsis related to the E. coli bacteremia. Both organisms were genetically traced to the donor stool. The AGA has NIH funding to develop and maintain an FMT registry (see https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30088-4/pdf) so we can understand long-term risks and benefits.

These rare experiences will lead to increased scrutiny and likely further FDA regulations. Gastroenterologists should be careful about choosing patients for FMT.

This month, we again feature an article about incorporating telehealth into your practice – this month’s article highlights the potential for private practices to incorporate this emerging technology. There are interesting articles about treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, acute liver failure, and postcolonoscopy interval cancers. Finally, we are cautioned about the vulnerability of our biosimilar market. This market may wither despite the great potential to reduce therapeutic costs.

Last week, I taught an undergraduate course about health care economics. After recounting current challenges, one student said, “I am a first-year medical student, what should I do?” I was caught off guard. The future is too overwhelming. As we enter the 12-month countdown to a national election, I would suggest that we continue to advocate for our patients and educate our political leaders about verifiable root causes of our major problems. Despite current antipathy to science and data, we are scientists and eventually truth will prevail. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief

Julia Brennan sings about inner demons. They just won’t go away and they don’t play fair with angels. We have marveled at the miracles of fecal microbiome transplants (FMT), but this month we read about an inner demon. Two patients developed bacteremia from extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli transmitted during FMT from stool derived from a single donor. One patient, with cirrhosis, who received FMT as part of a trial to treat hepatic encephalopathy, recovered. A second patient with myelodysplastic syndrome underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and received FMT as part of a phase 2 trial. This severely immunocompromised patient succumbed to sepsis related to the E. coli bacteremia. Both organisms were genetically traced to the donor stool. The AGA has NIH funding to develop and maintain an FMT registry (see https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(17)30088-4/pdf) so we can understand long-term risks and benefits.

These rare experiences will lead to increased scrutiny and likely further FDA regulations. Gastroenterologists should be careful about choosing patients for FMT.

This month, we again feature an article about incorporating telehealth into your practice – this month’s article highlights the potential for private practices to incorporate this emerging technology. There are interesting articles about treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, acute liver failure, and postcolonoscopy interval cancers. Finally, we are cautioned about the vulnerability of our biosimilar market. This market may wither despite the great potential to reduce therapeutic costs.

Last week, I taught an undergraduate course about health care economics. After recounting current challenges, one student said, “I am a first-year medical student, what should I do?” I was caught off guard. The future is too overwhelming. As we enter the 12-month countdown to a national election, I would suggest that we continue to advocate for our patients and educate our political leaders about verifiable root causes of our major problems. Despite current antipathy to science and data, we are scientists and eventually truth will prevail. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.).
 

John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF
Editor in Chief