The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Background

Veterans receiving care in the community (CITC) are prescribed oral oncology medications to be filled at VA pharmacies. Many of the outpatient prescriptions written for oncology medications require a prior authorization review by a pharmacist. A standardized workflow to obtain outside records to ensure patient safety, appropriate therapeutic selections, and maximize cost avoidance was established in March 2023. This quality improvement project evaluated the implementation of a clinical peer-to-peer prescription referral process between operational and oncology clinical pharmacists (CPS) to include a prior authorization drug request (PADR) review.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed to assess the effectiveness of the CITC Rx review process. Patients who had a CITC PADR consult entered between April 2023 and March 2024 were included. Metrics obtained included medication ordered, diagnosis, line of treatment, date prescription received, time to PADR completion, PADR outcome, FDA approval status, and conformity to VA National Oncology Program (NOP) disease pathway. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data.

Results

Top reasons for referral for CITC included best medical interest and drive time. Fifty-one PADR requests were submitted for 41 patients. Forty-six PADR consults were completed. Approval rate was 85%. Consults involved 32 different oncolytics, 78% had VA Pharmacy Benefits Manager criteria for use. Thirty-seven percent of the PADR requests adhered to the NOP pathways. Approximately 30% of PADR requests did not have an associated NOP pathway. Seventy-four percent of drugs had an associated FDA approval. On average, two calls were made to CITC provider by the operational pharmacist to obtain necessary information for clinical review, resulting in a 5 day time to PADR entry. The average time to PADR consult completion was 9.5 hours. Four interventions addressed drug interactions or dosing adjustments.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated the feasibility and framework for implementing a standardized peer-to-peer PADR consult review process for CITC prescriptions requiring prior authorization. Having separate intake of CITC prescriptions by the operational pharmacist who is responsible for obtaining outside records, the CPS provided a timely clinical review of PADR consults, assuring appropriate therapeutic selections to maximize cost avoidance while maintaining patient safety.

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Approximately two thirds of hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) received suboptimal treatment with inhalers, mainly resulting from errors, based on data from 96 individuals.

“Numerous studies have highlighted the significant issue of improper inhaler use in outpatient settings, but the extent of this problem within hospital settings remains poorly documented,” said lead author Gaël Grandmaison, MD, of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, in an interview.

“This gap in knowledge is concerning, especially considering that several factors associated with suboptimal inhaler use, such as improper inhalation techniques, insufficient inspiratory flow, or the use of inhalers that are not suited to the patient’s specific characteristics, are associated with poorer disease control, more frequent exacerbations, and increased costs,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

To better characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with inhaler misuse in hospitalized patients with COPD, the researchers reviewed data from consecutive patients with COPD who were hospitalized in the general internal medicine department of a single institution between August 2022 and April 2023. Patients were assessed for peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and inhaler technique.

The primary outcome was the proportion of misused inhalers, which was defined as any inhaler used with either insufficient PIF and/or a critical error. The mean age of the patients was 71.6 years, 63% were men, and 67% were hospitalized for COPD exacerbations. Patients used 3.0 inhalers on average.

The study included 96 patients and 160 inhalers that were assessed at hospital admission. Overall, 111 were misused. Of those misused, 105 were associated with a critical error in the inhalation technique, and 22 were used with an insufficient PIF. After an episode of misuse, patients received targeted teaching on correct use that was repeated until they performed the technique without errors.

The percentage of inhaler misuse decreased over the course of the teaching sessions. The proportion of inhaler misuse decreased to 20.6%, 9.4%, and 5.6% after one, two, and three sessions, respectively.

“The inhalation technique was classified as ‘non-teachable’ if the patient continued to exhibit critical errors despite receiving three repetitions of the instructions,” the researchers wrote. Factors associated with inhaler misuse included cognitive disorders, fine motor disorders, poor coordination between inhaler activation and aspiration, and the inability to hold one’s breath.

Overall, the proportion of misused inhalers did not vary by age or gender. In an analysis at the patient level, 79 patients used at least one misused inhaler, 78 used at least one inhaler with a critical error, and 21 used inhalers with insufficient PIF.

“This study is particularly timely because reasons for hospitalization, such as COPD exacerbations or confusional states, could exacerbate the problem, leading to a potentially higher prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use compared to outpatient settings,” Dr. Grandmaison said.

The researchers also examined secondary outcomes including the prevalence of inhalers that were not suited to them and the number of patients using at least one misused inhaler.

The study findings confirm that suboptimal inhaler use is a significant problem in the hospital setting and provide new insights into the specific reasons behind this suboptimal usage, Dr. Grandmaison said.

“In the majority of cases, poor inhalation technique is the primary cause, which can generally be corrected through targeted therapeutic education,” she said. However, the study also revealed that 20% of patients are unable to use at least one of their inhalers correctly because of insufficient inspiratory force. Another 10% struggle despite receiving proper instruction, often because of cognitive impairments or difficulty with fine motor skills.

The results underscore the need for a comprehensive approach to inhaler use in hospitalized patients that combines continuous therapeutic education with personalized assessment in order to improve technique and subsequently enhance patient outcomes, she said.
 

Changing Clinical Practice

“As hospital physicians, these findings have led us to systematically evaluate the inhalers used by COPD patients, regardless of their reason for hospitalization,” Dr. Grandmaison said. Consequently, the hospital has implemented an assessment of inhaler use among patients that includes a review of techniques, an evaluation of the appropriateness of the inhaler prescribed, and an algorithm to help clinicians choose the most appropriate inhaler. Since its inception, the targeted intervention has significantly reduced improper inhaler use at discharge.

Limitations and Next Steps

The findings were limited by several factors including the possible underreporting of misuse caused by inadequate PIF, a lack of consensus on what constitutes a critical error, and the small sample of patients from a single center.

Despite these limitations, the study adds to the understanding of improper inhaler use in the hospital setting, Dr. Grandmaison said. “Our subsequent research demonstrated that a systematic evaluation of inhalers, combined with therapeutic education and an algorithm to select an inhaler suited to the patient’s characteristics, significantly reduces the number of improperly used inhalers at hospital discharge.”

However, several areas require further investigation, said Dr. Grandmaison. The most effective methods and frequency for teaching inhalation techniques must be defined, and more research is needed to understand the factors influencing PIF and its progression over the course of disease. The next steps for the current research are to evaluate the impact of the intervention on long-term symptom control and disease progression.

“Moreover, adapting the strategy developed in our institution for use in outpatient care is a priority, and multicenter studies would be valuable in validating these findings across different hospital settings,” she added.
 

In-Hospital Inhaler Education Falls Short

“Poor inhaler technique can lead to ineffective inhaler use and suboptimal treatment of COPD,” said Arianne K. Baldomero, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in an interview.

“The results from this study are consistent with prior studies showing a high prevalence of suboptimal inhaler use,” said Dr. Baldomero, who was not involved in the current study.

“The investigators also found that therapeutic education led to a significant reduction in the number of critical errors,” she said.

“What is surprising is that it can take up to three lessons to reduce this critical error down to 3.8%,” Dr. Baldomero said. “In most real-world clinic settings, many patients are not taught how to properly use inhalers, and many patients who receive inhaler technique education only receive instructions once.”

Dr. Baldomero’s takeaway from the study is that teaching patients to properly use their inhalers is critical, but that this education may need to be repeated multiple times. The findings also remind clinicians that some types of inhaler delivery are not suited for patients who cannot generate adequate respiratory flow.

Looking ahead, a larger sample size is needed to better identify which patients need additional teaching, Dr. Baldomero said. Also, the current study is limited by the focus on hospitalized patients. “I am interested in learning about the characteristics of patients in the outpatient settings who would benefit from additional inhaler teaching,” she noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Hospital of Fribourg in Switzerland. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Baldomero had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A substantial proportion of older adults with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiate glucocorticoids before receiving care from a rheumatologist. The early initiation of glucocorticoids in this group is associated with prolonged use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from Medicare claims and Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry of the American College of Rheumatology from 2016 to 2018 to assess the relationship between the timing of glucocorticoid initiation and the subsequent duration of glucocorticoid use in older adults with early RA in the United States.
• They included 1733 patients aged ≥ 65 years (mean age, 76 years; 67% women) with early RA.
• Glucocorticoid initiation was defined as the first use between 3 months before and 6 months after entrance into rheumatology care.
• The continuous administration of glucocorticoid therapy was monitored for all individuals who initiated glucocorticoid treatment for up to 12 months after entering rheumatology care.
• The primary outcome was the duration of continuous glucocorticoid use after entering rheumatology care.

TAKEAWAY:

• Glucocorticoids were initiated in 41% of patients, with 65% starting them before the initial RA diagnosis by a rheumatologist. The median duration of glucocorticoid use was 157 days.
• Patients with early RA who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care showed a significantly longer duration of glucocorticoid use than those who initiated it later (median, 186 vs 97 days; P < .0001).
• Patients who initiated glucocorticoids before entering rheumatology care were 39% less likely to stop its use within 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74).
• The mean daily dose of glucocorticoids was < 5 mg/d for patients who received them for at least 3 months, indicating a trend toward low-dose, long-term use.

IN PRACTICE:

“Initiatives to reduce GC [glucocorticoid] exposure among patients with eRA [early RA] will likely require attention to rheumatology workforce shortages and close collaboration between rheumatologists and primary care clinicians to expedite referrals to rheumatology care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Andriko Palmowski, MD, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and was published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited the ability to establish causality between early glucocorticoid initiation and the prolonged use of glucocorticoids. Moreover, the study population was limited to older adults, which affected the generalizability of the findings to younger populations. It also did not account for the fact that patients with more severe early RA were more likely to start glucocorticoid therapy early and continue it for longer durations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Deutsche Autoimmun-Stiftung and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grant support, consultancy fees, honoraria, and travel expenses and had other ties with various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The AGA editorial fellowship program, currently in its seventh year, selects several outstanding individuals who are interested in scientific publishing to take part in the year-long program. We are excited to announce the 2024-25 participants, who will gain hands-on experience and mentorship working closely with the editors and staff at the AGA journals over the next year.

The 10 editorial fellows (2 per journal) will learn about the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review to acceptance. They will participate in discussions and conferences with the boards of editors, assist with manuscript review, and help disseminate articles via their social media platforms.

AGA

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Robyn Jordan, MD, MPH

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore | USA

Daryl Ramai, MD, MPH, MSc

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston | USA
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Kole H. Buckley, PhD

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia | USA

Lin Y. Hung, PhD

New York University | USA
 

Gastroenterology

Corey J. Ketchem, MD

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | USA

Rishad Khan, MD

University of Toronto | Canada
 

Gastro Hep Advances

Sasha Kapil, MD

UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas | USA

June Tome, MD

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | USA
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Thomas Enke, MD

University of Colorado, Aurora | USA

Sami Elamin, MD

Harvard, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston | USA

The AGA editorial fellowship program, currently in its seventh year, selects several outstanding individuals who are interested in scientific publishing to take part in the year-long program. We are excited to announce the 2024-25 participants, who will gain hands-on experience and mentorship working closely with the editors and staff at the AGA journals over the next year.

The 10 editorial fellows (2 per journal) will learn about the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review to acceptance. They will participate in discussions and conferences with the boards of editors, assist with manuscript review, and help disseminate articles via their social media platforms.

AGA

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Robyn Jordan, MD, MPH

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore | USA

Daryl Ramai, MD, MPH, MSc

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston | USA
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Kole H. Buckley, PhD

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia | USA

Lin Y. Hung, PhD

New York University | USA
 

Gastroenterology

Corey J. Ketchem, MD

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | USA

Rishad Khan, MD

University of Toronto | Canada
 

Gastro Hep Advances

Sasha Kapil, MD

UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas | USA

June Tome, MD

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | USA
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Thomas Enke, MD

University of Colorado, Aurora | USA

Sami Elamin, MD

Harvard, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston | USA

The AGA editorial fellowship program, currently in its seventh year, selects several outstanding individuals who are interested in scientific publishing to take part in the year-long program. We are excited to announce the 2024-25 participants, who will gain hands-on experience and mentorship working closely with the editors and staff at the AGA journals over the next year.

The 10 editorial fellows (2 per journal) will learn about the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review to acceptance. They will participate in discussions and conferences with the boards of editors, assist with manuscript review, and help disseminate articles via their social media platforms.

AGA

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Robyn Jordan, MD, MPH

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore | USA

Daryl Ramai, MD, MPH, MSc

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston | USA
 

Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Kole H. Buckley, PhD

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia | USA

Lin Y. Hung, PhD

New York University | USA
 

Gastroenterology

Corey J. Ketchem, MD

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia | USA

Rishad Khan, MD

University of Toronto | Canada
 

Gastro Hep Advances

Sasha Kapil, MD

UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas | USA

June Tome, MD

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota | USA
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Thomas Enke, MD

University of Colorado, Aurora | USA

Sami Elamin, MD

Harvard, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston | USA

As an AGA member, you can help fund discoveries that will continue to improve GI practice and better patient care.

The AGA Research Foundation has helped make significant strides in advancing the treatment and cure of digestive diseases by funding talented investigators.

Planning your gift to benefit AGA Research Foundation in the future is an opportunity to express what matters to you. As an AGA member, you can work with the AGA Research Foundation to ensure that your planned gift is designated for a purpose that meets your goals for leaving a legacy—such as research awards, support for specific programs, or unrestricted gifts to help meet the Foundation’s mission.

In as little as one sentence in your will and/or trust, you can complete your gift: “I give to AGA Research Foundation, a nonprofit corporation currently located at 4930 Del Ray Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, or its successor thereto, _________ [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted charitable use and purpose.”

If you have named the AGA Research Foundation in your will or trust, please let us know so we can ensure that your gift is used according to your wishes. Notifying us of your plans will enable us to plan for the use of your future gift. However, if you prefer to remain anonymous, we will keep your name and gift in strict confidence.

Please contact [email protected] for more information. If you are considering a planned gift, consult with your own legal and tax advisors.

As an AGA member, you can help fund discoveries that will continue to improve GI practice and better patient care.

The AGA Research Foundation has helped make significant strides in advancing the treatment and cure of digestive diseases by funding talented investigators.

Planning your gift to benefit AGA Research Foundation in the future is an opportunity to express what matters to you. As an AGA member, you can work with the AGA Research Foundation to ensure that your planned gift is designated for a purpose that meets your goals for leaving a legacy—such as research awards, support for specific programs, or unrestricted gifts to help meet the Foundation’s mission.

In as little as one sentence in your will and/or trust, you can complete your gift: “I give to AGA Research Foundation, a nonprofit corporation currently located at 4930 Del Ray Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, or its successor thereto, _________ [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted charitable use and purpose.”

If you have named the AGA Research Foundation in your will or trust, please let us know so we can ensure that your gift is used according to your wishes. Notifying us of your plans will enable us to plan for the use of your future gift. However, if you prefer to remain anonymous, we will keep your name and gift in strict confidence.

Please contact [email protected] for more information. If you are considering a planned gift, consult with your own legal and tax advisors.

As an AGA member, you can help fund discoveries that will continue to improve GI practice and better patient care.

The AGA Research Foundation has helped make significant strides in advancing the treatment and cure of digestive diseases by funding talented investigators.

Planning your gift to benefit AGA Research Foundation in the future is an opportunity to express what matters to you. As an AGA member, you can work with the AGA Research Foundation to ensure that your planned gift is designated for a purpose that meets your goals for leaving a legacy—such as research awards, support for specific programs, or unrestricted gifts to help meet the Foundation’s mission.

In as little as one sentence in your will and/or trust, you can complete your gift: “I give to AGA Research Foundation, a nonprofit corporation currently located at 4930 Del Ray Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, or its successor thereto, _________ [written amount or percentage of the estate or description of property] for its unrestricted charitable use and purpose.”

If you have named the AGA Research Foundation in your will or trust, please let us know so we can ensure that your gift is used according to your wishes. Notifying us of your plans will enable us to plan for the use of your future gift. However, if you prefer to remain anonymous, we will keep your name and gift in strict confidence.

Please contact [email protected] for more information. If you are considering a planned gift, consult with your own legal and tax advisors.

Colonic strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) may not increase long-term risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), offering support for a conservative approach to stricture management, according to investigators.

Although 8% of patients with strictures in a multicenter study were diagnosed with CRC, this diagnosis was made either simultaneously or within 1 year of stricture diagnosis, suggesting that cancer may have driven stricture development, and not the other way around, lead author Thomas Hunaut, MD, of Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France, and colleagues reported.

“The occurrence of colonic stricture in CD always raises concerns about the risk for dysplasia/cancer,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, noting that no consensus approach is currently available to guide stricture management. “Few studies with conflicting results have evaluated the frequency of CRC associated with colonic stricture in CD, and the natural history of colonic stricture in CD is poorly known.”The present retrospective study included 88 consecutive CD patients with 96 colorectal strictures who were managed at three French referral centers between 1993 and 2022.

Strictures were symptomatic in 62.5% of cases, not passable by scope in 61.4% of cases, and ulcerated in 70.5% of cases. Colonic resection was needed in 47.7% of patients, while endoscopic balloon dilation was performed in 13.6% of patients.

After a median follow-up of 21.5 months, seven patients (8%) were diagnosed with malignant stricture, including five cases of colonic adenocarcinoma, one case of neuroendocrine carcinoma, and one case of B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasia.

Malignant strictures were more common among older patients with longer disease duration and frequent obstructive symptoms; however, these factors were not supported by multivariate analyses, likely due to sample size, according to the investigators.

Instead, Dr. Hunaut and colleagues highlighted the timing of the diagnoses. In four out of seven patients with malignant stricture, both stricture and cancer were diagnosed at the same time. In the remaining three patients, cancer was diagnosed at 3 months, 8 months, and 12 months after stricture diagnosis. No cases of cancer were diagnosed later than 1 year after the stricture diagnosis.

“We believe that this result is important for the management of colonic strictures complicating CD in clinical practice,” Dr. Hunaut and colleagues wrote.

The simultaneity or proximity of the diagnoses suggests that the “strictures observed are already a neoplastic complication of the colonic inflammatory disease,” they explained.

In other words, common concerns about strictures causing cancer at the same site could be unfounded.

This conclusion echoes a recent administrative database study that reported no independent association between colorectal stricture and CRC, the investigators noted.

“Given the recent evidence on the risk of cancer associated with colonic strictures in CD, systematic colectomy is probably no longer justified,” they wrote. “Factors such as a long disease duration, primary sclerosing cholangitis, a history of dysplasia, and nonpassable and/or symptomatic stricture despite endoscopic dilation tend to argue in favor of surgery — especially if limited resection is possible.”

In contrast, patients with strictures who have low risk of CRC may be better served by a conservative approach, including endoscopy and systematic biopsies, followed by close endoscopic surveillance, according to the investigators. If the stricture is impassable, they recommended endoscopic balloon dilation, followed by intensification of medical therapy if ulceration is observed.

The investigators disclosed relationships with MSD, Ferring, Biogen, and others.

Colonic strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) may not increase long-term risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), offering support for a conservative approach to stricture management, according to investigators.

Although 8% of patients with strictures in a multicenter study were diagnosed with CRC, this diagnosis was made either simultaneously or within 1 year of stricture diagnosis, suggesting that cancer may have driven stricture development, and not the other way around, lead author Thomas Hunaut, MD, of Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France, and colleagues reported.

“The occurrence of colonic stricture in CD always raises concerns about the risk for dysplasia/cancer,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, noting that no consensus approach is currently available to guide stricture management. “Few studies with conflicting results have evaluated the frequency of CRC associated with colonic stricture in CD, and the natural history of colonic stricture in CD is poorly known.”The present retrospective study included 88 consecutive CD patients with 96 colorectal strictures who were managed at three French referral centers between 1993 and 2022.

Strictures were symptomatic in 62.5% of cases, not passable by scope in 61.4% of cases, and ulcerated in 70.5% of cases. Colonic resection was needed in 47.7% of patients, while endoscopic balloon dilation was performed in 13.6% of patients.

After a median follow-up of 21.5 months, seven patients (8%) were diagnosed with malignant stricture, including five cases of colonic adenocarcinoma, one case of neuroendocrine carcinoma, and one case of B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasia.

Malignant strictures were more common among older patients with longer disease duration and frequent obstructive symptoms; however, these factors were not supported by multivariate analyses, likely due to sample size, according to the investigators.

Instead, Dr. Hunaut and colleagues highlighted the timing of the diagnoses. In four out of seven patients with malignant stricture, both stricture and cancer were diagnosed at the same time. In the remaining three patients, cancer was diagnosed at 3 months, 8 months, and 12 months after stricture diagnosis. No cases of cancer were diagnosed later than 1 year after the stricture diagnosis.

“We believe that this result is important for the management of colonic strictures complicating CD in clinical practice,” Dr. Hunaut and colleagues wrote.

The simultaneity or proximity of the diagnoses suggests that the “strictures observed are already a neoplastic complication of the colonic inflammatory disease,” they explained.

In other words, common concerns about strictures causing cancer at the same site could be unfounded.

This conclusion echoes a recent administrative database study that reported no independent association between colorectal stricture and CRC, the investigators noted.

“Given the recent evidence on the risk of cancer associated with colonic strictures in CD, systematic colectomy is probably no longer justified,” they wrote. “Factors such as a long disease duration, primary sclerosing cholangitis, a history of dysplasia, and nonpassable and/or symptomatic stricture despite endoscopic dilation tend to argue in favor of surgery — especially if limited resection is possible.”

In contrast, patients with strictures who have low risk of CRC may be better served by a conservative approach, including endoscopy and systematic biopsies, followed by close endoscopic surveillance, according to the investigators. If the stricture is impassable, they recommended endoscopic balloon dilation, followed by intensification of medical therapy if ulceration is observed.

The investigators disclosed relationships with MSD, Ferring, Biogen, and others.

Colonic strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) may not increase long-term risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), offering support for a conservative approach to stricture management, according to investigators.

Although 8% of patients with strictures in a multicenter study were diagnosed with CRC, this diagnosis was made either simultaneously or within 1 year of stricture diagnosis, suggesting that cancer may have driven stricture development, and not the other way around, lead author Thomas Hunaut, MD, of Université de Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France, and colleagues reported.

“The occurrence of colonic stricture in CD always raises concerns about the risk for dysplasia/cancer,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances, noting that no consensus approach is currently available to guide stricture management. “Few studies with conflicting results have evaluated the frequency of CRC associated with colonic stricture in CD, and the natural history of colonic stricture in CD is poorly known.”The present retrospective study included 88 consecutive CD patients with 96 colorectal strictures who were managed at three French referral centers between 1993 and 2022.

Strictures were symptomatic in 62.5% of cases, not passable by scope in 61.4% of cases, and ulcerated in 70.5% of cases. Colonic resection was needed in 47.7% of patients, while endoscopic balloon dilation was performed in 13.6% of patients.

After a median follow-up of 21.5 months, seven patients (8%) were diagnosed with malignant stricture, including five cases of colonic adenocarcinoma, one case of neuroendocrine carcinoma, and one case of B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasia.

Malignant strictures were more common among older patients with longer disease duration and frequent obstructive symptoms; however, these factors were not supported by multivariate analyses, likely due to sample size, according to the investigators.

Instead, Dr. Hunaut and colleagues highlighted the timing of the diagnoses. In four out of seven patients with malignant stricture, both stricture and cancer were diagnosed at the same time. In the remaining three patients, cancer was diagnosed at 3 months, 8 months, and 12 months after stricture diagnosis. No cases of cancer were diagnosed later than 1 year after the stricture diagnosis.

“We believe that this result is important for the management of colonic strictures complicating CD in clinical practice,” Dr. Hunaut and colleagues wrote.

The simultaneity or proximity of the diagnoses suggests that the “strictures observed are already a neoplastic complication of the colonic inflammatory disease,” they explained.

In other words, common concerns about strictures causing cancer at the same site could be unfounded.

This conclusion echoes a recent administrative database study that reported no independent association between colorectal stricture and CRC, the investigators noted.

“Given the recent evidence on the risk of cancer associated with colonic strictures in CD, systematic colectomy is probably no longer justified,” they wrote. “Factors such as a long disease duration, primary sclerosing cholangitis, a history of dysplasia, and nonpassable and/or symptomatic stricture despite endoscopic dilation tend to argue in favor of surgery — especially if limited resection is possible.”

In contrast, patients with strictures who have low risk of CRC may be better served by a conservative approach, including endoscopy and systematic biopsies, followed by close endoscopic surveillance, according to the investigators. If the stricture is impassable, they recommended endoscopic balloon dilation, followed by intensification of medical therapy if ulceration is observed.

The investigators disclosed relationships with MSD, Ferring, Biogen, and others.

Cases

Consults for percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement for a patient ...

• With dysphagia after stroke: A 70-year-old female with a history of hypertension presented to the hospital with altered mental status and left-sided weakness. She was previously active and independently living. MRI of the brain revealed a right basal ganglia infarct. As a result, she developed dysphagia. She was evaluated by speech and language pathology and underwent a modified barium swallow. Given concerns for aspiration, the recommendation was made for gastroenterology (GI) consultation to place PEG tube for nutrition and medication administration.
• With advanced dementia: An 85-year-old male with an extensive medical history including advanced dementia was admitted from his nursing home for decreased oral intake. His baseline mental status is awake and alert, but he is nonverbal and does not follow commands. Upon 72-hour calorie count, the nutrition consultants determined that he cannot independently meet his nutrition goals. His family wants “everything done” and are asking about a “feeding tube.” The primary team has now consulted GI for PEG tube placement.
• Who is being discharged to a long-term care facility: A 45-year-old male was admitted to the ICU after a heroin overdose. CPR was initiated in the field and return of spontaneous circulation was obtained after 25 minutes. The patient has minimal brainstem reflexes. He is ventilator dependent. He has no family, and now is status-post tracheostomy placement by two-physician consent. The patient is ready for discharge to a long-term care facility that will not accept patients with nasogastric tubes. GI is consulted for PEG tube placement.

Discussion

Gastroenterologists are often consulted for PEG tube placement. However, the circumstances surrounding and the implications of PEG tube placement are often complicated for reasons beyond nutritional or technical considerations. This is rooted in the fact that, as one expert wrote, “feeding, unlike any other medical treatment, has a moral and emotional significance derived from culture.”¹ Understanding the evidence, ethical considerations, and team dynamic behind PEG tube placement is critical for every gastroenterologist. Herein we review these topics and offer guidelines for having patient-centered conversations involving these fundamental concepts.

courtesy Paul Nguyen

First, the gastroenterologist should understand the evidence to debunk myths and clarify truths surrounding PEG tube placement. While PEG tubes may help patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis stabilize their weight and can even be prophylactically placed in select patients with head and neck cancer,^2,3 they are not always appropriate in patients in early recovery from stroke and have not been shown to improve outcomes in patients with advanced dementia. At least 50% of stroke-related dysphagia resolves within 1-2 weeks, and so the American Heart Association Stroke Council recommends continuing nasogastric tube feeding for 2-3 weeks in patients such as the one presented in case 1 before considering PEG tube placement.⁴

In situations of advanced dementia such as in case,² several studies demonstrate that PEG tubes do not reduce or prevent aspiration pneumonia, prevent consequences of malnutrition, prolong life, reduce pressure ulcers, reduce urinary of gastrointestinal tract infections, lead to functional improvement, mitigate decline, or even improve comfort or quality of life for patients or their caregivers.^5-7 Despite this evidence, as demonstrated in case,³ it is true that many American skilled nursing facilities will not accept a patient without a PEG if enteral feeding is needed. This restriction may vary by state: One study found that skilled nursing facilities in New York City are much less likely to accept patients with nasogastric feeding tubes than randomly selected skilled nursing facilities throughout the country.⁶ Nonetheless, gastroenterologists should look to the literature to understand the outcomes of populations of patients after PEG tube placement and use that data to guide decision-making.

courtesy Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

Secondly, the five ethical principles that inform all medical decision making – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and futility – should also inform the gastroenterologist’s rationale in offering PEG placement.⁸

Autonomy implies that the medical team has determined who is able to make the decision regarding PEG tube placement for the patient. Beneficence connects the patient’s medical diagnosis and technical parameters of PEG tube placement with his or her goals of care. Nonmaleficence ensures the decision-making party understands the benefits and risks of the procedure, including anticipatory guidance on possible PEG tube management, complications, risks, and need for replacement. Justice incorporates the context of the patient’s life, including family dynamics, religious, cultural, and financial factors. Futility connects the patient’s prognosis with practical aspects of having a PEG tube.

The complexity of PEG placement lies in the fact that these ethical principles are often at odds with each other. For example, case 2 highlights the conflicting principles of autonomy and futility for elderly dementia patients: While PEG tube placements do not improve comfort or quality of life in advanced dementia (futility), the family representing the patient has stated they want everything done for his care, including PEG tube placement (autonomy). Navigating these ethical principles can be difficult, but having a framework to organize the different factors offers sound guidance for the gastroenterologist.

courtesy Rusty Schramm

Finally, the gastroenterologist should recognize the roles of the multidisciplinary team members, including the patient and their representatives, regarding PEG tube placement consults. While gastroenterologists can be viewed as the technicians consulted to simply “place the tube,” they must seek to understand the members of the team representing the patient to be stewards of their skill set. Consulting team physicians carry great responsibility in organizing the medical and psychosocial aspects of each patient’s care, and their proper goals to relieve suffering and prevent death may color their judgment regarding who they believe is a candidate for a PEG tube. Nutritionists, speech therapists, and case managers can help provide objective data on the practicality and feasibility of a PEG tube in their patients. The healthcare system may influence the decision to consult heavily, as seen in the rules of the long-term care facility in case.³ While it is the job of the multidisciplinary medical team to explain the evidence and ethical considerations of PEG tube placement in a patient-centered manner, ultimately the decision belongs to the patient and their family or representatives.

The moral burden of not pursuing PEG placement may supersede the medical advice in many situations. There is an emotionally taxing perception that withholding nutrition via PEG is “starving the patient,” despite literature showing many terminally ill patients do not experience thirst or hunger, and those who do have alleviation of these symptoms with small amounts of food or liquid, not with PEG placement.⁵ As every patient is unique, PEG tube consultation guidelines created with input from all stakeholders have been utilized to ensure that patients are medically optimized for PEG tube placement and that evidence and ethics-based considerations are evaluated by the multidisciplinary team. An example of such a guideline is shown in Figure 1.

courtesy Dr. Emily Seltzer

If the gastroenterologist encounters more contentious consultations, there are ways to build consensus to both alleviate patient and family suffering as well as elevate the discussions between teams.

First, identify the type of consult that is repeatedly bringing differing viewpoints and differing ethical principles into play. Second, get representatives from teams together in a neutral environment to understand stakeholders needs. New data suggest, in stroke cases like case 1, there may be dramatic benefit in long-term ability to recover if patients can get early intensive rehabilitation.⁹ This intense daily rehabilitation is not available within the hospital setting at many locations, and facilitation of discharge may be requested earlier than usually advised tube placement. Third, build a common language for requests and responses between teams. For instance, neurologists can identify and document which patients have less likelihood of early spontaneous recovery, and this can allow gastroenterologists to understand that those patients with little potential for early swallowing recovery can safely be targeted for PEG earlier during the hospital course. Other patients described as having a potential for spontaneous improvement should be given time to recover before an intervention is considered.¹⁰ Having a common understanding of goals and a better-informed decision pathway helps each team member feel fulfilled and rewarded, which will ultimately help reduce compassion fatigue and moral burden on providers.

courtesy Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital

In conclusion, PEG tube placement can be a challenging consultation for gastroenterologists because of the clinical, social, and ethical ramifications at stake for the patient. Even when PEG tube placement is technically feasible, the gastroenterologist should feel empowered to address the evidence-based outcomes of PEG tube placement, discuss the ethical principles of the decision-making process, and communicate with a multidisciplinary team using guidelines as set forth by this paper to best serve the patient.

Dr. Seltzer is based in the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside-West, New York City. Dr. Pusateri is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Dr. Nguyen is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Stein is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. All authors contributed equally to this manuscript, and have no disclosures related to this article.

References

1. Mackie S. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2001 May-Jun;24(3):138-42.

2. Miller RG et al. Neurology. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181bc0141.

3. Colevas AD et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 May. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0026.

4. Holloway RG et al. Stroke. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000015.

5. Finucane TE et al. JAMA. 1999 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.14.1365.

6. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1177/0884533616629636.

7. American Geriatrics Society Ethics C, Clinical P, Models of Care C. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Aug. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12924.

8. Beauchamp TL. Principlism in Bioethics. In: Serna P, eds. Bioethical Decision Making and Argumentation. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 70. Springer; Cham. 2016 Sept:1-16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43419-3_1.

9. Powers WJ et al. Stroke. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211.

10. Galovic M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 May. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4858.

Cases

Consults for percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement for a patient ...

• With dysphagia after stroke: A 70-year-old female with a history of hypertension presented to the hospital with altered mental status and left-sided weakness. She was previously active and independently living. MRI of the brain revealed a right basal ganglia infarct. As a result, she developed dysphagia. She was evaluated by speech and language pathology and underwent a modified barium swallow. Given concerns for aspiration, the recommendation was made for gastroenterology (GI) consultation to place PEG tube for nutrition and medication administration.
• With advanced dementia: An 85-year-old male with an extensive medical history including advanced dementia was admitted from his nursing home for decreased oral intake. His baseline mental status is awake and alert, but he is nonverbal and does not follow commands. Upon 72-hour calorie count, the nutrition consultants determined that he cannot independently meet his nutrition goals. His family wants “everything done” and are asking about a “feeding tube.” The primary team has now consulted GI for PEG tube placement.
• Who is being discharged to a long-term care facility: A 45-year-old male was admitted to the ICU after a heroin overdose. CPR was initiated in the field and return of spontaneous circulation was obtained after 25 minutes. The patient has minimal brainstem reflexes. He is ventilator dependent. He has no family, and now is status-post tracheostomy placement by two-physician consent. The patient is ready for discharge to a long-term care facility that will not accept patients with nasogastric tubes. GI is consulted for PEG tube placement.

Discussion

Gastroenterologists are often consulted for PEG tube placement. However, the circumstances surrounding and the implications of PEG tube placement are often complicated for reasons beyond nutritional or technical considerations. This is rooted in the fact that, as one expert wrote, “feeding, unlike any other medical treatment, has a moral and emotional significance derived from culture.”¹ Understanding the evidence, ethical considerations, and team dynamic behind PEG tube placement is critical for every gastroenterologist. Herein we review these topics and offer guidelines for having patient-centered conversations involving these fundamental concepts.

courtesy Paul Nguyen

First, the gastroenterologist should understand the evidence to debunk myths and clarify truths surrounding PEG tube placement. While PEG tubes may help patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis stabilize their weight and can even be prophylactically placed in select patients with head and neck cancer,^2,3 they are not always appropriate in patients in early recovery from stroke and have not been shown to improve outcomes in patients with advanced dementia. At least 50% of stroke-related dysphagia resolves within 1-2 weeks, and so the American Heart Association Stroke Council recommends continuing nasogastric tube feeding for 2-3 weeks in patients such as the one presented in case 1 before considering PEG tube placement.⁴

In situations of advanced dementia such as in case,² several studies demonstrate that PEG tubes do not reduce or prevent aspiration pneumonia, prevent consequences of malnutrition, prolong life, reduce pressure ulcers, reduce urinary of gastrointestinal tract infections, lead to functional improvement, mitigate decline, or even improve comfort or quality of life for patients or their caregivers.^5-7 Despite this evidence, as demonstrated in case,³ it is true that many American skilled nursing facilities will not accept a patient without a PEG if enteral feeding is needed. This restriction may vary by state: One study found that skilled nursing facilities in New York City are much less likely to accept patients with nasogastric feeding tubes than randomly selected skilled nursing facilities throughout the country.⁶ Nonetheless, gastroenterologists should look to the literature to understand the outcomes of populations of patients after PEG tube placement and use that data to guide decision-making.

courtesy Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

Secondly, the five ethical principles that inform all medical decision making – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and futility – should also inform the gastroenterologist’s rationale in offering PEG placement.⁸

Autonomy implies that the medical team has determined who is able to make the decision regarding PEG tube placement for the patient. Beneficence connects the patient’s medical diagnosis and technical parameters of PEG tube placement with his or her goals of care. Nonmaleficence ensures the decision-making party understands the benefits and risks of the procedure, including anticipatory guidance on possible PEG tube management, complications, risks, and need for replacement. Justice incorporates the context of the patient’s life, including family dynamics, religious, cultural, and financial factors. Futility connects the patient’s prognosis with practical aspects of having a PEG tube.

The complexity of PEG placement lies in the fact that these ethical principles are often at odds with each other. For example, case 2 highlights the conflicting principles of autonomy and futility for elderly dementia patients: While PEG tube placements do not improve comfort or quality of life in advanced dementia (futility), the family representing the patient has stated they want everything done for his care, including PEG tube placement (autonomy). Navigating these ethical principles can be difficult, but having a framework to organize the different factors offers sound guidance for the gastroenterologist.

courtesy Rusty Schramm

Finally, the gastroenterologist should recognize the roles of the multidisciplinary team members, including the patient and their representatives, regarding PEG tube placement consults. While gastroenterologists can be viewed as the technicians consulted to simply “place the tube,” they must seek to understand the members of the team representing the patient to be stewards of their skill set. Consulting team physicians carry great responsibility in organizing the medical and psychosocial aspects of each patient’s care, and their proper goals to relieve suffering and prevent death may color their judgment regarding who they believe is a candidate for a PEG tube. Nutritionists, speech therapists, and case managers can help provide objective data on the practicality and feasibility of a PEG tube in their patients. The healthcare system may influence the decision to consult heavily, as seen in the rules of the long-term care facility in case.³ While it is the job of the multidisciplinary medical team to explain the evidence and ethical considerations of PEG tube placement in a patient-centered manner, ultimately the decision belongs to the patient and their family or representatives.

The moral burden of not pursuing PEG placement may supersede the medical advice in many situations. There is an emotionally taxing perception that withholding nutrition via PEG is “starving the patient,” despite literature showing many terminally ill patients do not experience thirst or hunger, and those who do have alleviation of these symptoms with small amounts of food or liquid, not with PEG placement.⁵ As every patient is unique, PEG tube consultation guidelines created with input from all stakeholders have been utilized to ensure that patients are medically optimized for PEG tube placement and that evidence and ethics-based considerations are evaluated by the multidisciplinary team. An example of such a guideline is shown in Figure 1.

courtesy Dr. Emily Seltzer

If the gastroenterologist encounters more contentious consultations, there are ways to build consensus to both alleviate patient and family suffering as well as elevate the discussions between teams.

First, identify the type of consult that is repeatedly bringing differing viewpoints and differing ethical principles into play. Second, get representatives from teams together in a neutral environment to understand stakeholders needs. New data suggest, in stroke cases like case 1, there may be dramatic benefit in long-term ability to recover if patients can get early intensive rehabilitation.⁹ This intense daily rehabilitation is not available within the hospital setting at many locations, and facilitation of discharge may be requested earlier than usually advised tube placement. Third, build a common language for requests and responses between teams. For instance, neurologists can identify and document which patients have less likelihood of early spontaneous recovery, and this can allow gastroenterologists to understand that those patients with little potential for early swallowing recovery can safely be targeted for PEG earlier during the hospital course. Other patients described as having a potential for spontaneous improvement should be given time to recover before an intervention is considered.¹⁰ Having a common understanding of goals and a better-informed decision pathway helps each team member feel fulfilled and rewarded, which will ultimately help reduce compassion fatigue and moral burden on providers.

courtesy Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital

In conclusion, PEG tube placement can be a challenging consultation for gastroenterologists because of the clinical, social, and ethical ramifications at stake for the patient. Even when PEG tube placement is technically feasible, the gastroenterologist should feel empowered to address the evidence-based outcomes of PEG tube placement, discuss the ethical principles of the decision-making process, and communicate with a multidisciplinary team using guidelines as set forth by this paper to best serve the patient.

Dr. Seltzer is based in the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside-West, New York City. Dr. Pusateri is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Dr. Nguyen is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Stein is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. All authors contributed equally to this manuscript, and have no disclosures related to this article.

References

1. Mackie S. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2001 May-Jun;24(3):138-42.

2. Miller RG et al. Neurology. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181bc0141.

3. Colevas AD et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 May. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0026.

4. Holloway RG et al. Stroke. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000015.

5. Finucane TE et al. JAMA. 1999 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.14.1365.

6. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1177/0884533616629636.

7. American Geriatrics Society Ethics C, Clinical P, Models of Care C. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Aug. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12924.

8. Beauchamp TL. Principlism in Bioethics. In: Serna P, eds. Bioethical Decision Making and Argumentation. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 70. Springer; Cham. 2016 Sept:1-16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43419-3_1.

9. Powers WJ et al. Stroke. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211.

10. Galovic M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 May. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4858.

Cases

Consults for percutaneous gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement for a patient ...

• With dysphagia after stroke: A 70-year-old female with a history of hypertension presented to the hospital with altered mental status and left-sided weakness. She was previously active and independently living. MRI of the brain revealed a right basal ganglia infarct. As a result, she developed dysphagia. She was evaluated by speech and language pathology and underwent a modified barium swallow. Given concerns for aspiration, the recommendation was made for gastroenterology (GI) consultation to place PEG tube for nutrition and medication administration.
• With advanced dementia: An 85-year-old male with an extensive medical history including advanced dementia was admitted from his nursing home for decreased oral intake. His baseline mental status is awake and alert, but he is nonverbal and does not follow commands. Upon 72-hour calorie count, the nutrition consultants determined that he cannot independently meet his nutrition goals. His family wants “everything done” and are asking about a “feeding tube.” The primary team has now consulted GI for PEG tube placement.
• Who is being discharged to a long-term care facility: A 45-year-old male was admitted to the ICU after a heroin overdose. CPR was initiated in the field and return of spontaneous circulation was obtained after 25 minutes. The patient has minimal brainstem reflexes. He is ventilator dependent. He has no family, and now is status-post tracheostomy placement by two-physician consent. The patient is ready for discharge to a long-term care facility that will not accept patients with nasogastric tubes. GI is consulted for PEG tube placement.

Discussion

Gastroenterologists are often consulted for PEG tube placement. However, the circumstances surrounding and the implications of PEG tube placement are often complicated for reasons beyond nutritional or technical considerations. This is rooted in the fact that, as one expert wrote, “feeding, unlike any other medical treatment, has a moral and emotional significance derived from culture.”¹ Understanding the evidence, ethical considerations, and team dynamic behind PEG tube placement is critical for every gastroenterologist. Herein we review these topics and offer guidelines for having patient-centered conversations involving these fundamental concepts.

courtesy Paul Nguyen

First, the gastroenterologist should understand the evidence to debunk myths and clarify truths surrounding PEG tube placement. While PEG tubes may help patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis stabilize their weight and can even be prophylactically placed in select patients with head and neck cancer,^2,3 they are not always appropriate in patients in early recovery from stroke and have not been shown to improve outcomes in patients with advanced dementia. At least 50% of stroke-related dysphagia resolves within 1-2 weeks, and so the American Heart Association Stroke Council recommends continuing nasogastric tube feeding for 2-3 weeks in patients such as the one presented in case 1 before considering PEG tube placement.⁴

In situations of advanced dementia such as in case,² several studies demonstrate that PEG tubes do not reduce or prevent aspiration pneumonia, prevent consequences of malnutrition, prolong life, reduce pressure ulcers, reduce urinary of gastrointestinal tract infections, lead to functional improvement, mitigate decline, or even improve comfort or quality of life for patients or their caregivers.^5-7 Despite this evidence, as demonstrated in case,³ it is true that many American skilled nursing facilities will not accept a patient without a PEG if enteral feeding is needed. This restriction may vary by state: One study found that skilled nursing facilities in New York City are much less likely to accept patients with nasogastric feeding tubes than randomly selected skilled nursing facilities throughout the country.⁶ Nonetheless, gastroenterologists should look to the literature to understand the outcomes of populations of patients after PEG tube placement and use that data to guide decision-making.

courtesy Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center

Secondly, the five ethical principles that inform all medical decision making – autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and futility – should also inform the gastroenterologist’s rationale in offering PEG placement.⁸

Autonomy implies that the medical team has determined who is able to make the decision regarding PEG tube placement for the patient. Beneficence connects the patient’s medical diagnosis and technical parameters of PEG tube placement with his or her goals of care. Nonmaleficence ensures the decision-making party understands the benefits and risks of the procedure, including anticipatory guidance on possible PEG tube management, complications, risks, and need for replacement. Justice incorporates the context of the patient’s life, including family dynamics, religious, cultural, and financial factors. Futility connects the patient’s prognosis with practical aspects of having a PEG tube.

The complexity of PEG placement lies in the fact that these ethical principles are often at odds with each other. For example, case 2 highlights the conflicting principles of autonomy and futility for elderly dementia patients: While PEG tube placements do not improve comfort or quality of life in advanced dementia (futility), the family representing the patient has stated they want everything done for his care, including PEG tube placement (autonomy). Navigating these ethical principles can be difficult, but having a framework to organize the different factors offers sound guidance for the gastroenterologist.

courtesy Rusty Schramm

Finally, the gastroenterologist should recognize the roles of the multidisciplinary team members, including the patient and their representatives, regarding PEG tube placement consults. While gastroenterologists can be viewed as the technicians consulted to simply “place the tube,” they must seek to understand the members of the team representing the patient to be stewards of their skill set. Consulting team physicians carry great responsibility in organizing the medical and psychosocial aspects of each patient’s care, and their proper goals to relieve suffering and prevent death may color their judgment regarding who they believe is a candidate for a PEG tube. Nutritionists, speech therapists, and case managers can help provide objective data on the practicality and feasibility of a PEG tube in their patients. The healthcare system may influence the decision to consult heavily, as seen in the rules of the long-term care facility in case.³ While it is the job of the multidisciplinary medical team to explain the evidence and ethical considerations of PEG tube placement in a patient-centered manner, ultimately the decision belongs to the patient and their family or representatives.

The moral burden of not pursuing PEG placement may supersede the medical advice in many situations. There is an emotionally taxing perception that withholding nutrition via PEG is “starving the patient,” despite literature showing many terminally ill patients do not experience thirst or hunger, and those who do have alleviation of these symptoms with small amounts of food or liquid, not with PEG placement.⁵ As every patient is unique, PEG tube consultation guidelines created with input from all stakeholders have been utilized to ensure that patients are medically optimized for PEG tube placement and that evidence and ethics-based considerations are evaluated by the multidisciplinary team. An example of such a guideline is shown in Figure 1.

courtesy Dr. Emily Seltzer

If the gastroenterologist encounters more contentious consultations, there are ways to build consensus to both alleviate patient and family suffering as well as elevate the discussions between teams.

First, identify the type of consult that is repeatedly bringing differing viewpoints and differing ethical principles into play. Second, get representatives from teams together in a neutral environment to understand stakeholders needs. New data suggest, in stroke cases like case 1, there may be dramatic benefit in long-term ability to recover if patients can get early intensive rehabilitation.⁹ This intense daily rehabilitation is not available within the hospital setting at many locations, and facilitation of discharge may be requested earlier than usually advised tube placement. Third, build a common language for requests and responses between teams. For instance, neurologists can identify and document which patients have less likelihood of early spontaneous recovery, and this can allow gastroenterologists to understand that those patients with little potential for early swallowing recovery can safely be targeted for PEG earlier during the hospital course. Other patients described as having a potential for spontaneous improvement should be given time to recover before an intervention is considered.¹⁰ Having a common understanding of goals and a better-informed decision pathway helps each team member feel fulfilled and rewarded, which will ultimately help reduce compassion fatigue and moral burden on providers.

courtesy Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital

In conclusion, PEG tube placement can be a challenging consultation for gastroenterologists because of the clinical, social, and ethical ramifications at stake for the patient. Even when PEG tube placement is technically feasible, the gastroenterologist should feel empowered to address the evidence-based outcomes of PEG tube placement, discuss the ethical principles of the decision-making process, and communicate with a multidisciplinary team using guidelines as set forth by this paper to best serve the patient.

Dr. Seltzer is based in the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside-West, New York City. Dr. Pusateri is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Dr. Nguyen is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Center for Esophageal Diseases, Baylor Scott & White Health, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Stein is based in the Division of Gastroenterology, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. All authors contributed equally to this manuscript, and have no disclosures related to this article.

References

1. Mackie S. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2001 May-Jun;24(3):138-42.

2. Miller RG et al. Neurology. 2009 Oct. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181bc0141.

3. Colevas AD et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 May. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0026.

4. Holloway RG et al. Stroke. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000015.

5. Finucane TE et al. JAMA. 1999 Oct. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.14.1365.

6. Burgermaster M et al. Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1177/0884533616629636.

7. American Geriatrics Society Ethics C, Clinical P, Models of Care C. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Aug. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12924.

8. Beauchamp TL. Principlism in Bioethics. In: Serna P, eds. Bioethical Decision Making and Argumentation. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 70. Springer; Cham. 2016 Sept:1-16. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43419-3_1.

9. Powers WJ et al. Stroke. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000211.

10. Galovic M et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 May. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4858.