Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by repetitive upper airway collapse resulting in intermittent hypoxemia and hypercapnia, large intrathoracic pressure swings, and cortical arousals. The rate of apneas and hypopneas observed during sleep, the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), has been used for decades to diagnose OSA and to classify its severity. Despite the wide acceptance of this metric by the sleep medicine community, clinical research has found poor correlations between the AHI- and OSA-related complications or symptoms. We have come to learn that the AHI is an oversimplification of a complex and diverse disease process. (Punjabi. Chest. 2016;149[1]:16-9).

The most important features of a disease metric are reliability, and the ability to predict clinically relevant outcomes. The reliability of the AHI has been in question due to substantial night-to-night variability that can lead to missed diagnosis and disease severity misclassification (Dzierzewski et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[4]:539-44). Furthermore, the AHI fails to reflect some important physiologic derangements resulting from respiratory events. Apart from imperfectly set thresholds for scoring, it disregards the depth and the duration of ventilatory disturbances. For example, a hypopnea lasting 30 seconds and resulting in a decrease of 10% in oxyhemoglobin saturation is considered equivalent to a hypopnea lasting 10 seconds and resulting in a decrease of 4% in oxyhemoglobin saturation. The AHI also assumes that apneas and hypopneas are equal in their biological effects regardless of when they occur during sleep (NREM vs REM), despite reports suggesting that the sequalae of OSA are sleep-stage dependent (Varga, Mokhlesi. Sleep Breath. 2019;23[2]:413-23). This is further complicated by the varying hypopnea definitions and the difficulties in differentiating obstructive vs central hypopneas. It is doubtful that these events, which differ in mechanism, would result in similar outcomes.
 

Over the past decade, our understanding of the different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to OSA has grown substantially, suggesting the need for a phenotype-specific treatment approach (Zinchuk, Yaggi. Chest. 2020;157[2]:403-20). The reliance on a single metric that does not capture this heterogeneity may prove detrimental to our therapeutic efforts. One extremely important dimension that is missed by the AHI is the patient. Individual response to airway obstruction varies with age, genetics, gender, and comorbidities, among other things. This may explain the difference in symptoms and outcomes experienced by patients with the same AHI. During the era of precision medicine, the concept of defining a clinical condition by a single test result, without regard to patient characteristics, is antiquated.

Several studies have attempted to propose complementary metrics that may better characterize OSA and predict outcomes. The hypoxic burden has gained a lot of attention as it is generally felt that hypoxemia is a major factor contributing to the pathogenesis of OSA-related comorbidities. Azarbarzin, et al. reported a hypoxic burden metric by measuring the area under the oxygen desaturation curve during a respiratory event (Azarbarzin et al. Eur Heart J. 2019;40[14]:1149-57). It factors the length and depth of the desaturations into a single value that expresses the average desaturation burden per hour of sleep time. The hypoxic burden was independently predictive of cardiovascular mortality in two large cohorts. Interestingly, the AHI did not have such an association. Similarly, another novel proposed parameter, the oxygen desaturation rate (ODR), outperformed the AHI in predicting cardiovascular outcomes in severe OSA patients (Wang et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[7]:1055-62). The ODR measures the speed of an oxygen desaturation during an apnea event. Subjects with a faster ODR were found to have higher blood pressure values and variability. The authors hypothesized that slower desaturations generate hypoxemia-conditioning that may protect from exaggerated hemodynamic changes. These findings of novel hypoxemia metrics, albeit having their own limitations, recapitulate the need to move beyond the AHI to characterize OSA.

The apnea-hypopnea event duration is another overlooked feature that may impact OSA outcomes. Butler, et al. demonstrated that shorter event duration predicted a higher all-cause mortality over and beyond that predicted by AHI (Butler et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[7]:903-12). These results contrast views that early arousals in response to respiratory events may improve outcomes as they reflect a protective mechanism to prevent further hypoxemia and sympatho-excitation. For example, Ma, et al. found that higher percentage of total sleep time spent in apnea/hypopnea (AHT%) predicted worse daytime sleepiness to a higher degree than standard AHI (Ma et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11[1]:4702). However, shorter event duration may represent lower arousal thresholds (increased excitability), and ventilatory control instability (higher loop gain), predisposing patients to augmented sympathetic activity. Along similar lines, the intensity of respiratory-related arousals (as measured by EEG wavelet transformation) was found to be independent of preceding respiratory stimulus, with higher arousal intensity levels correlating with higher respiratory and heart rate responses (Amatoury et al. Sleep. 2016;39[12]:2091-100). The contribution of arousals to OSA morbidity is of particular importance for women in whom long-term outcomes of elevated AHI are poorly understood. Bearing in mind the differences in the metrics used, these results underscore the role of event duration and arousability in the pathogenesis of OSA-related morbidity.

The AHI is certainly an important piece of data that is informative and somewhat predictive. However, when used as a sole disease-defining metric, it has yielded disappointing results, especially after OSA treatment trials failed to show cardiovascular benefits despite therapies achieving a low residual AHI. As we aim to achieve a more personalized approach for diagnosing and treating OSA, we need to explore beyond the concept of a single metric to define a heterogenous and complex disorder. Instead of relying on the frequency of respiratory events, it is time to use complementary polysomnographic data that better reflect the origin and systemic effects of these disturbances. Machine-learning methods may offer sophisticated approaches to identifying polysomnographic patterns for future research. Clinical characteristics will also likely need to be considered in OSA severity scales. The identification of symptom subtypes or blood biomarkers may help identify patient groups who may be impacted differently by OSA, and consequently have a different treatment response (Malhotra et al. Sleep. 2021;44[7]:zsab030).

Almost half a century has lapsed since the original descriptions of OSA. Since then, our understanding of the disorder has improved greatly, with much still to be discovered, but our method of disease capture is unwavering. Future research requires a focus on novel measures aimed at identifying OSA endophenotypes, which will transform our understanding of disease traits and propel us into personalized therapies.
 

Dr. Mansour is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Won is Associate Professor of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine; and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by repetitive upper airway collapse resulting in intermittent hypoxemia and hypercapnia, large intrathoracic pressure swings, and cortical arousals. The rate of apneas and hypopneas observed during sleep, the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), has been used for decades to diagnose OSA and to classify its severity. Despite the wide acceptance of this metric by the sleep medicine community, clinical research has found poor correlations between the AHI- and OSA-related complications or symptoms. We have come to learn that the AHI is an oversimplification of a complex and diverse disease process. (Punjabi. Chest. 2016;149[1]:16-9).

The most important features of a disease metric are reliability, and the ability to predict clinically relevant outcomes. The reliability of the AHI has been in question due to substantial night-to-night variability that can lead to missed diagnosis and disease severity misclassification (Dzierzewski et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[4]:539-44). Furthermore, the AHI fails to reflect some important physiologic derangements resulting from respiratory events. Apart from imperfectly set thresholds for scoring, it disregards the depth and the duration of ventilatory disturbances. For example, a hypopnea lasting 30 seconds and resulting in a decrease of 10% in oxyhemoglobin saturation is considered equivalent to a hypopnea lasting 10 seconds and resulting in a decrease of 4% in oxyhemoglobin saturation. The AHI also assumes that apneas and hypopneas are equal in their biological effects regardless of when they occur during sleep (NREM vs REM), despite reports suggesting that the sequalae of OSA are sleep-stage dependent (Varga, Mokhlesi. Sleep Breath. 2019;23[2]:413-23). This is further complicated by the varying hypopnea definitions and the difficulties in differentiating obstructive vs central hypopneas. It is doubtful that these events, which differ in mechanism, would result in similar outcomes.
 

Over the past decade, our understanding of the different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to OSA has grown substantially, suggesting the need for a phenotype-specific treatment approach (Zinchuk, Yaggi. Chest. 2020;157[2]:403-20). The reliance on a single metric that does not capture this heterogeneity may prove detrimental to our therapeutic efforts. One extremely important dimension that is missed by the AHI is the patient. Individual response to airway obstruction varies with age, genetics, gender, and comorbidities, among other things. This may explain the difference in symptoms and outcomes experienced by patients with the same AHI. During the era of precision medicine, the concept of defining a clinical condition by a single test result, without regard to patient characteristics, is antiquated.

Several studies have attempted to propose complementary metrics that may better characterize OSA and predict outcomes. The hypoxic burden has gained a lot of attention as it is generally felt that hypoxemia is a major factor contributing to the pathogenesis of OSA-related comorbidities. Azarbarzin, et al. reported a hypoxic burden metric by measuring the area under the oxygen desaturation curve during a respiratory event (Azarbarzin et al. Eur Heart J. 2019;40[14]:1149-57). It factors the length and depth of the desaturations into a single value that expresses the average desaturation burden per hour of sleep time. The hypoxic burden was independently predictive of cardiovascular mortality in two large cohorts. Interestingly, the AHI did not have such an association. Similarly, another novel proposed parameter, the oxygen desaturation rate (ODR), outperformed the AHI in predicting cardiovascular outcomes in severe OSA patients (Wang et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[7]:1055-62). The ODR measures the speed of an oxygen desaturation during an apnea event. Subjects with a faster ODR were found to have higher blood pressure values and variability. The authors hypothesized that slower desaturations generate hypoxemia-conditioning that may protect from exaggerated hemodynamic changes. These findings of novel hypoxemia metrics, albeit having their own limitations, recapitulate the need to move beyond the AHI to characterize OSA.

The apnea-hypopnea event duration is another overlooked feature that may impact OSA outcomes. Butler, et al. demonstrated that shorter event duration predicted a higher all-cause mortality over and beyond that predicted by AHI (Butler et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[7]:903-12). These results contrast views that early arousals in response to respiratory events may improve outcomes as they reflect a protective mechanism to prevent further hypoxemia and sympatho-excitation. For example, Ma, et al. found that higher percentage of total sleep time spent in apnea/hypopnea (AHT%) predicted worse daytime sleepiness to a higher degree than standard AHI (Ma et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11[1]:4702). However, shorter event duration may represent lower arousal thresholds (increased excitability), and ventilatory control instability (higher loop gain), predisposing patients to augmented sympathetic activity. Along similar lines, the intensity of respiratory-related arousals (as measured by EEG wavelet transformation) was found to be independent of preceding respiratory stimulus, with higher arousal intensity levels correlating with higher respiratory and heart rate responses (Amatoury et al. Sleep. 2016;39[12]:2091-100). The contribution of arousals to OSA morbidity is of particular importance for women in whom long-term outcomes of elevated AHI are poorly understood. Bearing in mind the differences in the metrics used, these results underscore the role of event duration and arousability in the pathogenesis of OSA-related morbidity.

The AHI is certainly an important piece of data that is informative and somewhat predictive. However, when used as a sole disease-defining metric, it has yielded disappointing results, especially after OSA treatment trials failed to show cardiovascular benefits despite therapies achieving a low residual AHI. As we aim to achieve a more personalized approach for diagnosing and treating OSA, we need to explore beyond the concept of a single metric to define a heterogenous and complex disorder. Instead of relying on the frequency of respiratory events, it is time to use complementary polysomnographic data that better reflect the origin and systemic effects of these disturbances. Machine-learning methods may offer sophisticated approaches to identifying polysomnographic patterns for future research. Clinical characteristics will also likely need to be considered in OSA severity scales. The identification of symptom subtypes or blood biomarkers may help identify patient groups who may be impacted differently by OSA, and consequently have a different treatment response (Malhotra et al. Sleep. 2021;44[7]:zsab030).

Almost half a century has lapsed since the original descriptions of OSA. Since then, our understanding of the disorder has improved greatly, with much still to be discovered, but our method of disease capture is unwavering. Future research requires a focus on novel measures aimed at identifying OSA endophenotypes, which will transform our understanding of disease traits and propel us into personalized therapies.
 

Dr. Mansour is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Won is Associate Professor of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine; and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by repetitive upper airway collapse resulting in intermittent hypoxemia and hypercapnia, large intrathoracic pressure swings, and cortical arousals. The rate of apneas and hypopneas observed during sleep, the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), has been used for decades to diagnose OSA and to classify its severity. Despite the wide acceptance of this metric by the sleep medicine community, clinical research has found poor correlations between the AHI- and OSA-related complications or symptoms. We have come to learn that the AHI is an oversimplification of a complex and diverse disease process. (Punjabi. Chest. 2016;149[1]:16-9).

The most important features of a disease metric are reliability, and the ability to predict clinically relevant outcomes. The reliability of the AHI has been in question due to substantial night-to-night variability that can lead to missed diagnosis and disease severity misclassification (Dzierzewski et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[4]:539-44). Furthermore, the AHI fails to reflect some important physiologic derangements resulting from respiratory events. Apart from imperfectly set thresholds for scoring, it disregards the depth and the duration of ventilatory disturbances. For example, a hypopnea lasting 30 seconds and resulting in a decrease of 10% in oxyhemoglobin saturation is considered equivalent to a hypopnea lasting 10 seconds and resulting in a decrease of 4% in oxyhemoglobin saturation. The AHI also assumes that apneas and hypopneas are equal in their biological effects regardless of when they occur during sleep (NREM vs REM), despite reports suggesting that the sequalae of OSA are sleep-stage dependent (Varga, Mokhlesi. Sleep Breath. 2019;23[2]:413-23). This is further complicated by the varying hypopnea definitions and the difficulties in differentiating obstructive vs central hypopneas. It is doubtful that these events, which differ in mechanism, would result in similar outcomes.
 

Over the past decade, our understanding of the different pathophysiological mechanisms leading to OSA has grown substantially, suggesting the need for a phenotype-specific treatment approach (Zinchuk, Yaggi. Chest. 2020;157[2]:403-20). The reliance on a single metric that does not capture this heterogeneity may prove detrimental to our therapeutic efforts. One extremely important dimension that is missed by the AHI is the patient. Individual response to airway obstruction varies with age, genetics, gender, and comorbidities, among other things. This may explain the difference in symptoms and outcomes experienced by patients with the same AHI. During the era of precision medicine, the concept of defining a clinical condition by a single test result, without regard to patient characteristics, is antiquated.

Several studies have attempted to propose complementary metrics that may better characterize OSA and predict outcomes. The hypoxic burden has gained a lot of attention as it is generally felt that hypoxemia is a major factor contributing to the pathogenesis of OSA-related comorbidities. Azarbarzin, et al. reported a hypoxic burden metric by measuring the area under the oxygen desaturation curve during a respiratory event (Azarbarzin et al. Eur Heart J. 2019;40[14]:1149-57). It factors the length and depth of the desaturations into a single value that expresses the average desaturation burden per hour of sleep time. The hypoxic burden was independently predictive of cardiovascular mortality in two large cohorts. Interestingly, the AHI did not have such an association. Similarly, another novel proposed parameter, the oxygen desaturation rate (ODR), outperformed the AHI in predicting cardiovascular outcomes in severe OSA patients (Wang et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2020;16[7]:1055-62). The ODR measures the speed of an oxygen desaturation during an apnea event. Subjects with a faster ODR were found to have higher blood pressure values and variability. The authors hypothesized that slower desaturations generate hypoxemia-conditioning that may protect from exaggerated hemodynamic changes. These findings of novel hypoxemia metrics, albeit having their own limitations, recapitulate the need to move beyond the AHI to characterize OSA.

The apnea-hypopnea event duration is another overlooked feature that may impact OSA outcomes. Butler, et al. demonstrated that shorter event duration predicted a higher all-cause mortality over and beyond that predicted by AHI (Butler et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199[7]:903-12). These results contrast views that early arousals in response to respiratory events may improve outcomes as they reflect a protective mechanism to prevent further hypoxemia and sympatho-excitation. For example, Ma, et al. found that higher percentage of total sleep time spent in apnea/hypopnea (AHT%) predicted worse daytime sleepiness to a higher degree than standard AHI (Ma et al. Sci Rep. 2021;11[1]:4702). However, shorter event duration may represent lower arousal thresholds (increased excitability), and ventilatory control instability (higher loop gain), predisposing patients to augmented sympathetic activity. Along similar lines, the intensity of respiratory-related arousals (as measured by EEG wavelet transformation) was found to be independent of preceding respiratory stimulus, with higher arousal intensity levels correlating with higher respiratory and heart rate responses (Amatoury et al. Sleep. 2016;39[12]:2091-100). The contribution of arousals to OSA morbidity is of particular importance for women in whom long-term outcomes of elevated AHI are poorly understood. Bearing in mind the differences in the metrics used, these results underscore the role of event duration and arousability in the pathogenesis of OSA-related morbidity.

The AHI is certainly an important piece of data that is informative and somewhat predictive. However, when used as a sole disease-defining metric, it has yielded disappointing results, especially after OSA treatment trials failed to show cardiovascular benefits despite therapies achieving a low residual AHI. As we aim to achieve a more personalized approach for diagnosing and treating OSA, we need to explore beyond the concept of a single metric to define a heterogenous and complex disorder. Instead of relying on the frequency of respiratory events, it is time to use complementary polysomnographic data that better reflect the origin and systemic effects of these disturbances. Machine-learning methods may offer sophisticated approaches to identifying polysomnographic patterns for future research. Clinical characteristics will also likely need to be considered in OSA severity scales. The identification of symptom subtypes or blood biomarkers may help identify patient groups who may be impacted differently by OSA, and consequently have a different treatment response (Malhotra et al. Sleep. 2021;44[7]:zsab030).

Almost half a century has lapsed since the original descriptions of OSA. Since then, our understanding of the disorder has improved greatly, with much still to be discovered, but our method of disease capture is unwavering. Future research requires a focus on novel measures aimed at identifying OSA endophenotypes, which will transform our understanding of disease traits and propel us into personalized therapies.
 

Dr. Mansour is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Won is Associate Professor of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine; and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut.

THE COMPARISON

A Seborrheic dermatitis in a woman with brown-gray greasy scale, as well as petaloid papules and plaques that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

B Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, scale, and mild postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

C Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, faint scale, and postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

D Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema and scale of the eyebrows and glabellar region.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is an inflammatory condition that is thought to be part of a response to Malassezia yeast. The scalp and face are most commonly affected, particularly the nasolabial folds, eyebrows, ears, postauricular areas, and beard area. Men also may have SD on the mid upper chest in association with chest hair. In infants, the scalp and body skin folds often are affected.

Epidemiology

SD affects patients of all ages: infants, adolescents, and adults. It is among the most common dermatologic diagnoses reported in Black patients in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in darker skin tones

• In those with darker skin tones, arcuate, polycyclic, or petaloid (flower petallike) plaques may be present (FIGURE A). Also, hypopigmented patches and plaques may be prominent (FIGURES B AND C). The classic description includes thin pink patches and plaques with white greasy scale on the face (FIGURE D).
• The scalp may have diffuse scale or isolated scaly plaques.

Worth noting

• In those with tightly coiled hair, there is a predisposition for dry hair and increased risk for breakage.
• Treatment plans for patients with SD often include frequent hair washing. However, in those with tightly coiled hair, the treatment plan may need to be modified due to hair texture, tendency for dryness, and washing frequency preferences. Washing the scalp at least every 1 to 2 weeks may be a preferred approach for those with tightly coiled hair at increased risk for dryness/breakage vs washing daily.² In a sample of 201 caregivers of Black girls, Rucker Wright et al3 found that washing the hair more than once per week was not correlated with a lower prevalence of SD.
• If tightly coiled hair is temporarily straightened with heat (eg, blow-dryer, flat iron), adding a liquid-based treatment such as clobetasol solution or fluocinonide solution will cause the hair to revert to its normal curl pattern.
• It is appropriate to ask patients for their vehicle preference for medications.² For example, if clobetasol is the treatment selected for the patient, the vehicle can reflect patient preference for a liquid, foam, cream, or ointment.
• Some antifungal/antiyeast shampoos may cause further hair dryness and breakage.
• Treatment may be delayed because patients often use various topical pomades and ointments to cover up the scale and help with pruritus.
• Diffuse scale of tinea capitis in school- aged children can be mistaken for SD, which leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment.
• Clinicians should become comfortable with scalp examinations in patients with tightly coiled hair. Patients with chief concerns related to their hair and scalp expect their clinicians to touch these areas. Avoid leaning in to examine the patient without touching the patient’s hair and scalp.^2,4

Health disparity highlight

SD is among the most common cutaneous disorders diagnosed in patients with skin of color.^1,5 Delay in recognition of SD in those with darker skin tones leads to delayed treatment. SD of the face can cause notable postinflammatory pigmentation alteration. Pigmentation changes in the skin further impact quality of life.

THE COMPARISON

A Seborrheic dermatitis in a woman with brown-gray greasy scale, as well as petaloid papules and plaques that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

B Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, scale, and mild postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

C Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, faint scale, and postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

D Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema and scale of the eyebrows and glabellar region.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is an inflammatory condition that is thought to be part of a response to Malassezia yeast. The scalp and face are most commonly affected, particularly the nasolabial folds, eyebrows, ears, postauricular areas, and beard area. Men also may have SD on the mid upper chest in association with chest hair. In infants, the scalp and body skin folds often are affected.

Epidemiology

SD affects patients of all ages: infants, adolescents, and adults. It is among the most common dermatologic diagnoses reported in Black patients in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in darker skin tones

• In those with darker skin tones, arcuate, polycyclic, or petaloid (flower petallike) plaques may be present (FIGURE A). Also, hypopigmented patches and plaques may be prominent (FIGURES B AND C). The classic description includes thin pink patches and plaques with white greasy scale on the face (FIGURE D).
• The scalp may have diffuse scale or isolated scaly plaques.

Worth noting

• In those with tightly coiled hair, there is a predisposition for dry hair and increased risk for breakage.
• Treatment plans for patients with SD often include frequent hair washing. However, in those with tightly coiled hair, the treatment plan may need to be modified due to hair texture, tendency for dryness, and washing frequency preferences. Washing the scalp at least every 1 to 2 weeks may be a preferred approach for those with tightly coiled hair at increased risk for dryness/breakage vs washing daily.² In a sample of 201 caregivers of Black girls, Rucker Wright et al3 found that washing the hair more than once per week was not correlated with a lower prevalence of SD.
• If tightly coiled hair is temporarily straightened with heat (eg, blow-dryer, flat iron), adding a liquid-based treatment such as clobetasol solution or fluocinonide solution will cause the hair to revert to its normal curl pattern.
• It is appropriate to ask patients for their vehicle preference for medications.² For example, if clobetasol is the treatment selected for the patient, the vehicle can reflect patient preference for a liquid, foam, cream, or ointment.
• Some antifungal/antiyeast shampoos may cause further hair dryness and breakage.
• Treatment may be delayed because patients often use various topical pomades and ointments to cover up the scale and help with pruritus.
• Diffuse scale of tinea capitis in school- aged children can be mistaken for SD, which leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment.
• Clinicians should become comfortable with scalp examinations in patients with tightly coiled hair. Patients with chief concerns related to their hair and scalp expect their clinicians to touch these areas. Avoid leaning in to examine the patient without touching the patient’s hair and scalp.^2,4

Health disparity highlight

SD is among the most common cutaneous disorders diagnosed in patients with skin of color.^1,5 Delay in recognition of SD in those with darker skin tones leads to delayed treatment. SD of the face can cause notable postinflammatory pigmentation alteration. Pigmentation changes in the skin further impact quality of life.

THE COMPARISON

A Seborrheic dermatitis in a woman with brown-gray greasy scale, as well as petaloid papules and plaques that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

B Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, scale, and mild postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

C Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema, faint scale, and postinflammatory hypopigmentation that are especially prominent in the nasolabial folds.

D Seborrheic dermatitis in a man with erythema and scale of the eyebrows and glabellar region.

Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is an inflammatory condition that is thought to be part of a response to Malassezia yeast. The scalp and face are most commonly affected, particularly the nasolabial folds, eyebrows, ears, postauricular areas, and beard area. Men also may have SD on the mid upper chest in association with chest hair. In infants, the scalp and body skin folds often are affected.

Epidemiology

SD affects patients of all ages: infants, adolescents, and adults. It is among the most common dermatologic diagnoses reported in Black patients in the United States.¹

Key clinical features in darker skin tones

• In those with darker skin tones, arcuate, polycyclic, or petaloid (flower petallike) plaques may be present (FIGURE A). Also, hypopigmented patches and plaques may be prominent (FIGURES B AND C). The classic description includes thin pink patches and plaques with white greasy scale on the face (FIGURE D).
• The scalp may have diffuse scale or isolated scaly plaques.

Worth noting

• In those with tightly coiled hair, there is a predisposition for dry hair and increased risk for breakage.
• Treatment plans for patients with SD often include frequent hair washing. However, in those with tightly coiled hair, the treatment plan may need to be modified due to hair texture, tendency for dryness, and washing frequency preferences. Washing the scalp at least every 1 to 2 weeks may be a preferred approach for those with tightly coiled hair at increased risk for dryness/breakage vs washing daily.² In a sample of 201 caregivers of Black girls, Rucker Wright et al3 found that washing the hair more than once per week was not correlated with a lower prevalence of SD.
• If tightly coiled hair is temporarily straightened with heat (eg, blow-dryer, flat iron), adding a liquid-based treatment such as clobetasol solution or fluocinonide solution will cause the hair to revert to its normal curl pattern.
• It is appropriate to ask patients for their vehicle preference for medications.² For example, if clobetasol is the treatment selected for the patient, the vehicle can reflect patient preference for a liquid, foam, cream, or ointment.
• Some antifungal/antiyeast shampoos may cause further hair dryness and breakage.
• Treatment may be delayed because patients often use various topical pomades and ointments to cover up the scale and help with pruritus.
• Diffuse scale of tinea capitis in school- aged children can be mistaken for SD, which leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment.
• Clinicians should become comfortable with scalp examinations in patients with tightly coiled hair. Patients with chief concerns related to their hair and scalp expect their clinicians to touch these areas. Avoid leaning in to examine the patient without touching the patient’s hair and scalp.^2,4

Health disparity highlight

SD is among the most common cutaneous disorders diagnosed in patients with skin of color.^1,5 Delay in recognition of SD in those with darker skin tones leads to delayed treatment. SD of the face can cause notable postinflammatory pigmentation alteration. Pigmentation changes in the skin further impact quality of life.

The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.

“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.

Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.

REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
 

Platelet function assays test reversal

On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.

On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.

The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
 

Hemostasis documented in all but one patient

Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.

Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.

There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.

While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.

The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
 

No good current options for reversal

Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.

“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.

Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.

“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.

For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”

Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.

Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
 

The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.

“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.

Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.

REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
 

Platelet function assays test reversal

On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.

On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.

The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
 

Hemostasis documented in all but one patient

Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.

Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.

There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.

While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.

The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
 

No good current options for reversal

Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.

“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.

Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.

“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.

For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”

Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.

Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
 

The experimental monoclonal antibody bentracimab, which reverses the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, appears to be heading toward regulatory approval, on the basis of an interim analysis of the phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial.

“Rates of effective hemostasis were adjudicated as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases with no drug-related serious adverse events or allergic or infusion-related reactions,” reported Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The interim analysis of this nonrandomized, single-arm study was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is considering a conditional accelerated approval of bentracimab (formerly PB2452) if efficacy and safety are established.

Upon administration, bentracimab binds to free ticagrelor so that ticagrelor cannot bind to the P2Y12 platelet receptor. This interrupts one of the key steps in the pathway of platelet aggregation.

REVERSE-IT is still enrolling patients. This interim analysis was conducted with the first 150 patients who met eligibility criteria and were treated. Of these, 142 patients were enrolled for an urgent surgical indication and 8 for a major bleeding indication. After some exclusions for lack of urgency and reclassifications following adjudication, there were 113 surgical cases and 9 major bleeding patients evaluable for hemostasis.
 

Platelet function assays test reversal

On the primary reversal endpoint, which was restoration of activity on the proprietary platelet function assays Verify Now and PRUTest, a rapid restoration of platelet function was achieved in both surgical and major-bleeding patients. Platelet reactivity climbed to near normal levels within 10 minutes of administration, and peak effects were sustained through the first 24 hours after administration.

On the basis of the platelet function assays, the pattern of response to bentracimab was “very similar in the surgical and bleeding patients,” reported Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Health, Boston.

The effect was also consistent across a broad array of prespecified subgroups, including stratifications by age, renal function, time from last dose of ticagrelor, race, and the presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, renal dysfunction, hypertension, and history of MI.
 

Hemostasis documented in all but one patient

Adjudicated hemostasis was achieved in 100% of the 113 urgent surgical patients evaluated. In the nine major bleeding patients, six achieved excellent hemostasis and one achieved good hemostasis. One had poor hemostasis, and one was unevaluable.

Platelet rebound following bentracimab administration, measured by mean platelet volume, was not observed.

There were no serious adverse events, allergic reactions, or serious infusion-related reactions associated with the administration of bentracimab, Dr. Bhatt said.

While Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that the number of patients in the major-bleeding subgroup was small, he noted that the reduction in platelet reactivity relative to baseline was still significant. In addition, he characterized urgent surgery as “an excellent model of bleeding” and pointed out the consistency of results in the surgical and major-bleeding groups.

The interim results are also consistent with phase 1 data published 2 years ago, and with the subsequent phase 2 studies. All of these data are now under regulatory review both in the United States and in Europe, according to Dr. Bhatt.
 

No good current options for reversal

Evidence of efficacy and safety is encouraging, because current options for urgently reversing ticagrelor are “disappointing,” according to the invited discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hôpital, Paris.

“Platelet transfusion has some value for clopidogrel and prasugrel, but it does not work for ticagrelor,” said Dr. Montalescot, referring to two other P2Y12 inhibitors. Substantiating the need for a reversal agent, he identified several other strategies that have proven ineffective, such as desmopressin and sorbent hemadsorption.

Overall, Dr. Montalescot acknowledged the need for a highly effective ticagrelor reversal agent, but he did have some criticisms of REVERSE-IT. For one, he was not convinced about the design.

“What was unethical in having a control group?” he asked, suggesting that it was feasible and would have addressed issues of relative efficacy and safety.

For example, the authors concluded that none of the thrombotic events were likely to be treatment related, but “four events occurred immediately after reversal without an alternate explanation,” Dr. Montalescot pointed out. “Was this a signal or background noise?”

Nevertheless, he agreed that the interim phase 3 data are consistent with the previously reported phase 2 studies, and he reiterated that a strategy to reverse ticagrelor’s effects is an important unmet need.

Dr. Bhatt has a financial relationship with a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including PhaseBio, which provided funding for the REVERSE-IT trial. Dr. Montalescot reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cell-Prothera, CSL-Behring, Europa, Idorsia, Servicer, Medtronic, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, and Sanofi-Aventis.
 

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Neither corticosteroids nor platelet-rich plasma are superior to placebo

A 2014 systematic review of RCTs of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis identified 4 studies comparing corticosteroid injections to saline or anesthetic injections.¹ In the first study, investigators followed 64 patients for 6 months. Both groups significantly improved from baseline, but there were no differences in pain or function at 1 or 6 months. Skin discoloration occurred in 2 patients who received lidocaine injection and 1 who received dexamethasone.²

In a second RCT of patients with symptoms for > 4 weeks, 39 participants were randomized to either betamethasone/bupivacaine or bupivacaine-only injections. In-person follow-up occurred at 4 and 8 weeks and telephone follow-up at 6 months. Both groups statistically improved from baseline to 6 months. No differences were seen between groups in pain or functional improvement at 4, 8, or 26 weeks, but the betamethasone group showed statistically greater improvement on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from 8 weeks to the final 6-month telephone ­follow-up. No functional assessments were reported at 6 months.³

The third RCT of 165 patients with lateral epicondylitis for > 6 weeks evaluated 4 intervention groups: corticosteroid injection with/without physiotherapy and placebo (small-volume saline) injection with/without physiotherapy. At the end of 1 year, the corticosteroid injection groups had less complete recovery (83% vs 96%; relative risk [RR] = 0.86; 99% CI, 0.75-0.99) and more recurrences (54% vs 12%; RR = 0.23; 99% CI, 0.10-0.51) than the placebo groups.⁴

All injections that contained “placebo” significantly improved lateral epicondylitis.

The fourth RCT randomized 120 patients to either 2 mL lidocaine or 1 mL lidocaine plus 1 mL of triamcinolone. At 1-year follow-up, 57 of 60 lidocaine-injected patients had an excellent recovery and 56 of 60 triamcinolone plus lidocaine patients had an excellent recovery.⁵

Platelet-rich plasma. A meta-analysis⁶ of RCTs of PRP vs saline injections included 5 trials and 276 patients with a mean age of 48 years; duration of follow-up was 2 to 12 months. No significant differences were found between the groups for pain score—measured by VAS or the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE)—(standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.51; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.30) nor for functional score (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI, –0.46 to 0.33). Two of the trials reported adverse reactions of pain around the injection site: 16% to 20% in the PRP group vs 8% to 15% in the saline group.

Corticosteroids and PRP. A 2013 3-armed RCT⁷ (n = 60) compared 1-time injections of PRP, corticosteroid, and saline for treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Pain was evaluated at 1 and 3 months using the PRTEE. Compared to saline, corticosteroid showed a statistically significant, but not a minimum clinically important, reduction (8% greater improvement) at 1 month but not at 3 months. PRP pain reduction at both 1 and 3 months was not significantly different from placebo. Importantly, a small sample size combined with a high dropout rate (> 70%) limit validity of this study.

Botulinum toxin shows modest pain improvement, but …

A 2017 meta-analysis⁸ of 4 RCTs (n = 278) compared the effectiveness of botulinum toxin vs saline injection and other nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis. The studies compared the mean differences in pain relief and hand grip strength in adult patients with lateral epicondylitis symptoms for at least 3 months. Compared with saline injection, botulinum toxin injection significantly reduced pain to a small or medium SMD, at 2 to 4 weeks post injection (SMD = –0.73; 95% CI, –1.29 to –0.17); 8 to 12 weeks post injection (SMD = –0.45; 95% CI, –0.74 to –0.15); and 16+ weeks post injection (SMD = –0.54; 95% CI, –0.98 to –0.11). Harm from botulinum toxin was greater than from saline or corticosteroid, with a significant reduction in grip strength at 2 to 4 weeks (SMD = –0.33; 95% CI, –0.59 to –0.08).

Continue to: Prolotherapy needs further study

A 2008 RCT⁹ of 20 adults with at least 6 months of lateral epicondylitis received either prolotherapy (1 part 5% sodium morrhuate, 1.5 parts 50% dextrose, 0.5 parts 4% lidocaine, 0.5 parts 0.5% bupivacaine HCl, and 3.5 parts normal saline) injections or 0.9% saline injections at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. On a 10-point Likert scale, the prolotherapy group had a lower mean pain score at 16 weeks than the saline injection group (0.5 vs 3.5), but not at 8 weeks (3.3 vs 3.6). This pilot study’s results are limited by its small sample size.

Hyaluronic acid improves pain, but not enough

A 2010 double-blind RCT¹⁰ (n = 331) compared hyaluronic acid injection vs saline injection in treatment of lateral epicondylitis in adults with > 3 months of symptoms. Two injections were performed 1 week apart, with follow-up at 30 days and at 1 year after the first injection. VAS score in the hyaluronic acid group, at rest and after grip testing, was significantly different (statistically) than in the placebo group but did not meet criteria for minimum clinically important improvement. Review of the literature showed limited follow-up studies on hyaluronic acid for lateral epicondylitis to confirm this RCT.

Autologous blood has no advantage over placebo

The only RCT of autologous blood compared to saline injections¹¹ included patients with lateral epicondylitis for < 6 months: 10 saline injections vs 9 autologous blood injections. Patient scores on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (which measures symptoms from 0 to 100; lower is better) showed no difference but favored the saline injections at 2-month (28 vs 20) and 6-month (20 vs 10) follow-up.

Editor’s takeaway

Limiting the evidence review to studies with a placebo comparator clarifies the lack of effectiveness of lateral epicondylitis injections. Neither corticosteroid, platelet-rich plasma, botulinum toxin, prolotherapy, hyaluronic acid, or autologous blood injections have proven superior to saline or anesthetic injections. However, all injections that contained “placebo” significantly improved lateralepicondylitis.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Neither corticosteroids nor platelet-rich plasma are superior to placebo

A 2014 systematic review of RCTs of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis identified 4 studies comparing corticosteroid injections to saline or anesthetic injections.¹ In the first study, investigators followed 64 patients for 6 months. Both groups significantly improved from baseline, but there were no differences in pain or function at 1 or 6 months. Skin discoloration occurred in 2 patients who received lidocaine injection and 1 who received dexamethasone.²

In a second RCT of patients with symptoms for > 4 weeks, 39 participants were randomized to either betamethasone/bupivacaine or bupivacaine-only injections. In-person follow-up occurred at 4 and 8 weeks and telephone follow-up at 6 months. Both groups statistically improved from baseline to 6 months. No differences were seen between groups in pain or functional improvement at 4, 8, or 26 weeks, but the betamethasone group showed statistically greater improvement on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from 8 weeks to the final 6-month telephone ­follow-up. No functional assessments were reported at 6 months.³

The third RCT of 165 patients with lateral epicondylitis for > 6 weeks evaluated 4 intervention groups: corticosteroid injection with/without physiotherapy and placebo (small-volume saline) injection with/without physiotherapy. At the end of 1 year, the corticosteroid injection groups had less complete recovery (83% vs 96%; relative risk [RR] = 0.86; 99% CI, 0.75-0.99) and more recurrences (54% vs 12%; RR = 0.23; 99% CI, 0.10-0.51) than the placebo groups.⁴

All injections that contained “placebo” significantly improved lateral epicondylitis.

The fourth RCT randomized 120 patients to either 2 mL lidocaine or 1 mL lidocaine plus 1 mL of triamcinolone. At 1-year follow-up, 57 of 60 lidocaine-injected patients had an excellent recovery and 56 of 60 triamcinolone plus lidocaine patients had an excellent recovery.⁵

Platelet-rich plasma. A meta-analysis⁶ of RCTs of PRP vs saline injections included 5 trials and 276 patients with a mean age of 48 years; duration of follow-up was 2 to 12 months. No significant differences were found between the groups for pain score—measured by VAS or the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE)—(standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.51; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.30) nor for functional score (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI, –0.46 to 0.33). Two of the trials reported adverse reactions of pain around the injection site: 16% to 20% in the PRP group vs 8% to 15% in the saline group.

Corticosteroids and PRP. A 2013 3-armed RCT⁷ (n = 60) compared 1-time injections of PRP, corticosteroid, and saline for treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Pain was evaluated at 1 and 3 months using the PRTEE. Compared to saline, corticosteroid showed a statistically significant, but not a minimum clinically important, reduction (8% greater improvement) at 1 month but not at 3 months. PRP pain reduction at both 1 and 3 months was not significantly different from placebo. Importantly, a small sample size combined with a high dropout rate (> 70%) limit validity of this study.

Botulinum toxin shows modest pain improvement, but …

A 2017 meta-analysis⁸ of 4 RCTs (n = 278) compared the effectiveness of botulinum toxin vs saline injection and other nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis. The studies compared the mean differences in pain relief and hand grip strength in adult patients with lateral epicondylitis symptoms for at least 3 months. Compared with saline injection, botulinum toxin injection significantly reduced pain to a small or medium SMD, at 2 to 4 weeks post injection (SMD = –0.73; 95% CI, –1.29 to –0.17); 8 to 12 weeks post injection (SMD = –0.45; 95% CI, –0.74 to –0.15); and 16+ weeks post injection (SMD = –0.54; 95% CI, –0.98 to –0.11). Harm from botulinum toxin was greater than from saline or corticosteroid, with a significant reduction in grip strength at 2 to 4 weeks (SMD = –0.33; 95% CI, –0.59 to –0.08).

Continue to: Prolotherapy needs further study

A 2008 RCT⁹ of 20 adults with at least 6 months of lateral epicondylitis received either prolotherapy (1 part 5% sodium morrhuate, 1.5 parts 50% dextrose, 0.5 parts 4% lidocaine, 0.5 parts 0.5% bupivacaine HCl, and 3.5 parts normal saline) injections or 0.9% saline injections at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. On a 10-point Likert scale, the prolotherapy group had a lower mean pain score at 16 weeks than the saline injection group (0.5 vs 3.5), but not at 8 weeks (3.3 vs 3.6). This pilot study’s results are limited by its small sample size.

Hyaluronic acid improves pain, but not enough

A 2010 double-blind RCT¹⁰ (n = 331) compared hyaluronic acid injection vs saline injection in treatment of lateral epicondylitis in adults with > 3 months of symptoms. Two injections were performed 1 week apart, with follow-up at 30 days and at 1 year after the first injection. VAS score in the hyaluronic acid group, at rest and after grip testing, was significantly different (statistically) than in the placebo group but did not meet criteria for minimum clinically important improvement. Review of the literature showed limited follow-up studies on hyaluronic acid for lateral epicondylitis to confirm this RCT.

Autologous blood has no advantage over placebo

The only RCT of autologous blood compared to saline injections¹¹ included patients with lateral epicondylitis for < 6 months: 10 saline injections vs 9 autologous blood injections. Patient scores on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (which measures symptoms from 0 to 100; lower is better) showed no difference but favored the saline injections at 2-month (28 vs 20) and 6-month (20 vs 10) follow-up.

Editor’s takeaway

Limiting the evidence review to studies with a placebo comparator clarifies the lack of effectiveness of lateral epicondylitis injections. Neither corticosteroid, platelet-rich plasma, botulinum toxin, prolotherapy, hyaluronic acid, or autologous blood injections have proven superior to saline or anesthetic injections. However, all injections that contained “placebo” significantly improved lateralepicondylitis.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

Neither corticosteroids nor platelet-rich plasma are superior to placebo

A 2014 systematic review of RCTs of nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis identified 4 studies comparing corticosteroid injections to saline or anesthetic injections.¹ In the first study, investigators followed 64 patients for 6 months. Both groups significantly improved from baseline, but there were no differences in pain or function at 1 or 6 months. Skin discoloration occurred in 2 patients who received lidocaine injection and 1 who received dexamethasone.²

In a second RCT of patients with symptoms for > 4 weeks, 39 participants were randomized to either betamethasone/bupivacaine or bupivacaine-only injections. In-person follow-up occurred at 4 and 8 weeks and telephone follow-up at 6 months. Both groups statistically improved from baseline to 6 months. No differences were seen between groups in pain or functional improvement at 4, 8, or 26 weeks, but the betamethasone group showed statistically greater improvement on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from 8 weeks to the final 6-month telephone ­follow-up. No functional assessments were reported at 6 months.³

The third RCT of 165 patients with lateral epicondylitis for > 6 weeks evaluated 4 intervention groups: corticosteroid injection with/without physiotherapy and placebo (small-volume saline) injection with/without physiotherapy. At the end of 1 year, the corticosteroid injection groups had less complete recovery (83% vs 96%; relative risk [RR] = 0.86; 99% CI, 0.75-0.99) and more recurrences (54% vs 12%; RR = 0.23; 99% CI, 0.10-0.51) than the placebo groups.⁴

All injections that contained “placebo” significantly improved lateral epicondylitis.

The fourth RCT randomized 120 patients to either 2 mL lidocaine or 1 mL lidocaine plus 1 mL of triamcinolone. At 1-year follow-up, 57 of 60 lidocaine-injected patients had an excellent recovery and 56 of 60 triamcinolone plus lidocaine patients had an excellent recovery.⁵

Platelet-rich plasma. A meta-analysis⁶ of RCTs of PRP vs saline injections included 5 trials and 276 patients with a mean age of 48 years; duration of follow-up was 2 to 12 months. No significant differences were found between the groups for pain score—measured by VAS or the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE)—(standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.51; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.30) nor for functional score (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI, –0.46 to 0.33). Two of the trials reported adverse reactions of pain around the injection site: 16% to 20% in the PRP group vs 8% to 15% in the saline group.

Corticosteroids and PRP. A 2013 3-armed RCT⁷ (n = 60) compared 1-time injections of PRP, corticosteroid, and saline for treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Pain was evaluated at 1 and 3 months using the PRTEE. Compared to saline, corticosteroid showed a statistically significant, but not a minimum clinically important, reduction (8% greater improvement) at 1 month but not at 3 months. PRP pain reduction at both 1 and 3 months was not significantly different from placebo. Importantly, a small sample size combined with a high dropout rate (> 70%) limit validity of this study.

Botulinum toxin shows modest pain improvement, but …

A 2017 meta-analysis⁸ of 4 RCTs (n = 278) compared the effectiveness of botulinum toxin vs saline injection and other nonsurgical treatments for lateral epicondylitis. The studies compared the mean differences in pain relief and hand grip strength in adult patients with lateral epicondylitis symptoms for at least 3 months. Compared with saline injection, botulinum toxin injection significantly reduced pain to a small or medium SMD, at 2 to 4 weeks post injection (SMD = –0.73; 95% CI, –1.29 to –0.17); 8 to 12 weeks post injection (SMD = –0.45; 95% CI, –0.74 to –0.15); and 16+ weeks post injection (SMD = –0.54; 95% CI, –0.98 to –0.11). Harm from botulinum toxin was greater than from saline or corticosteroid, with a significant reduction in grip strength at 2 to 4 weeks (SMD = –0.33; 95% CI, –0.59 to –0.08).

Continue to: Prolotherapy needs further study

A 2008 RCT⁹ of 20 adults with at least 6 months of lateral epicondylitis received either prolotherapy (1 part 5% sodium morrhuate, 1.5 parts 50% dextrose, 0.5 parts 4% lidocaine, 0.5 parts 0.5% bupivacaine HCl, and 3.5 parts normal saline) injections or 0.9% saline injections at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. On a 10-point Likert scale, the prolotherapy group had a lower mean pain score at 16 weeks than the saline injection group (0.5 vs 3.5), but not at 8 weeks (3.3 vs 3.6). This pilot study’s results are limited by its small sample size.

Hyaluronic acid improves pain, but not enough

A 2010 double-blind RCT¹⁰ (n = 331) compared hyaluronic acid injection vs saline injection in treatment of lateral epicondylitis in adults with > 3 months of symptoms. Two injections were performed 1 week apart, with follow-up at 30 days and at 1 year after the first injection. VAS score in the hyaluronic acid group, at rest and after grip testing, was significantly different (statistically) than in the placebo group but did not meet criteria for minimum clinically important improvement. Review of the literature showed limited follow-up studies on hyaluronic acid for lateral epicondylitis to confirm this RCT.

Autologous blood has no advantage over placebo

The only RCT of autologous blood compared to saline injections¹¹ included patients with lateral epicondylitis for < 6 months: 10 saline injections vs 9 autologous blood injections. Patient scores on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scale (which measures symptoms from 0 to 100; lower is better) showed no difference but favored the saline injections at 2-month (28 vs 20) and 6-month (20 vs 10) follow-up.

Editor’s takeaway

Limiting the evidence review to studies with a placebo comparator clarifies the lack of effectiveness of lateral epicondylitis injections. Neither corticosteroid, platelet-rich plasma, botulinum toxin, prolotherapy, hyaluronic acid, or autologous blood injections have proven superior to saline or anesthetic injections. However, all injections that contained “placebo” significantly improved lateralepicondylitis.

In this issue of JFP, the Clinical Inquiry seeks to answer the question: What are effective injection treatments for lateral epicondylitis? Answering this question proved to be a daunting task for the authors. The difficulty lies in answering this question: effective compared to what?

What they discovered is that no type of injection therapy has been proven to be better than a saline injection.

The injections evaluated in their comprehensive review—corticosteroids, botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, prolotherapy, and autologous blood—have been compared in randomized trials to each other, usual treatment, no treatment, nonmedication treatments, noninjection treatments, surgeries, braces, and physical therapy.¹ But which comparison is the best one to determine true effectiveness beyond a placebo effect?

There are 2 choices for an ideal comparison group. One choice compares the active intervention to an adequate placebo, the other compares it to another treatment that has previously been proven effective. Ideally, the other treatment would be a “gold standard”—that is, the best treatment currently available. Unfortunately, for treatment of lateral epicondylitis, no gold standard has been established.

So, what is an “adequate placebo” for injection therapy? This is a very difficult question. The placebo should probably include putting a needle into the treatment site and injecting a nonactive substance, such as saline solution. This is the comparison group Vukelic et al chose for their review. But even saline could theoretically be therapeutic.

Another fair comparison for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis would be an injection near, but not at, the lateral epicondyle. Yet another comparison—dry needling without any medication to the lateral epicondyle vs dry needling of an adjacent location—would also be a fair comparison to help understand the effect of needling alone. Unfortunately, these comparisons have not been explored in randomized controlled trials. Although several studies have evaluated dry needling for lateral epicondylitis,^2-4 none have used a fair comparison.

Some studies¹ evaluating treatments for lateral epicondylitis used comparisons to agents that are ineffective or of uncertain effectiveness. Comparing 1 agent to another ineffective or potentially harmful agent obscures our knowledge. Evidence-based medicine must be built on a reliable foundation.

Vukelic and colleagues did an admirable job of selecting studies with an appropriate comparison group—that is, saline injection, the best comparator that has been studied. What they discovered is that no type of injection therapy has been proven to be better than a saline injection.

So, if your patient is not satisfied with conservative therapy for epicondylitis and wants an injection, salt water seems as good as anything.

In this issue of JFP, the Clinical Inquiry seeks to answer the question: What are effective injection treatments for lateral epicondylitis? Answering this question proved to be a daunting task for the authors. The difficulty lies in answering this question: effective compared to what?

What they discovered is that no type of injection therapy has been proven to be better than a saline injection.

The injections evaluated in their comprehensive review—corticosteroids, botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, prolotherapy, and autologous blood—have been compared in randomized trials to each other, usual treatment, no treatment, nonmedication treatments, noninjection treatments, surgeries, braces, and physical therapy.¹ But which comparison is the best one to determine true effectiveness beyond a placebo effect?

There are 2 choices for an ideal comparison group. One choice compares the active intervention to an adequate placebo, the other compares it to another treatment that has previously been proven effective. Ideally, the other treatment would be a “gold standard”—that is, the best treatment currently available. Unfortunately, for treatment of lateral epicondylitis, no gold standard has been established.

So, what is an “adequate placebo” for injection therapy? This is a very difficult question. The placebo should probably include putting a needle into the treatment site and injecting a nonactive substance, such as saline solution. This is the comparison group Vukelic et al chose for their review. But even saline could theoretically be therapeutic.

Another fair comparison for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis would be an injection near, but not at, the lateral epicondyle. Yet another comparison—dry needling without any medication to the lateral epicondyle vs dry needling of an adjacent location—would also be a fair comparison to help understand the effect of needling alone. Unfortunately, these comparisons have not been explored in randomized controlled trials. Although several studies have evaluated dry needling for lateral epicondylitis,^2-4 none have used a fair comparison.

Some studies¹ evaluating treatments for lateral epicondylitis used comparisons to agents that are ineffective or of uncertain effectiveness. Comparing 1 agent to another ineffective or potentially harmful agent obscures our knowledge. Evidence-based medicine must be built on a reliable foundation.

Vukelic and colleagues did an admirable job of selecting studies with an appropriate comparison group—that is, saline injection, the best comparator that has been studied. What they discovered is that no type of injection therapy has been proven to be better than a saline injection.

So, if your patient is not satisfied with conservative therapy for epicondylitis and wants an injection, salt water seems as good as anything.

In this issue of JFP, the Clinical Inquiry seeks to answer the question: What are effective injection treatments for lateral epicondylitis? Answering this question proved to be a daunting task for the authors. The difficulty lies in answering this question: effective compared to what?

What they discovered is that no type of injection therapy has been proven to be better than a saline injection.

The injections evaluated in their comprehensive review—corticosteroids, botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, prolotherapy, and autologous blood—have been compared in randomized trials to each other, usual treatment, no treatment, nonmedication treatments, noninjection treatments, surgeries, braces, and physical therapy.¹ But which comparison is the best one to determine true effectiveness beyond a placebo effect?

There are 2 choices for an ideal comparison group. One choice compares the active intervention to an adequate placebo, the other compares it to another treatment that has previously been proven effective. Ideally, the other treatment would be a “gold standard”—that is, the best treatment currently available. Unfortunately, for treatment of lateral epicondylitis, no gold standard has been established.

So, what is an “adequate placebo” for injection therapy? This is a very difficult question. The placebo should probably include putting a needle into the treatment site and injecting a nonactive substance, such as saline solution. This is the comparison group Vukelic et al chose for their review. But even saline could theoretically be therapeutic.

Another fair comparison for the treatment of lateral epicondylitis would be an injection near, but not at, the lateral epicondyle. Yet another comparison—dry needling without any medication to the lateral epicondyle vs dry needling of an adjacent location—would also be a fair comparison to help understand the effect of needling alone. Unfortunately, these comparisons have not been explored in randomized controlled trials. Although several studies have evaluated dry needling for lateral epicondylitis,^2-4 none have used a fair comparison.

Some studies¹ evaluating treatments for lateral epicondylitis used comparisons to agents that are ineffective or of uncertain effectiveness. Comparing 1 agent to another ineffective or potentially harmful agent obscures our knowledge. Evidence-based medicine must be built on a reliable foundation.

Vukelic and colleagues did an admirable job of selecting studies with an appropriate comparison group—that is, saline injection, the best comparator that has been studied. What they discovered is that no type of injection therapy has been proven to be better than a saline injection.

So, if your patient is not satisfied with conservative therapy for epicondylitis and wants an injection, salt water seems as good as anything.

THE CASE

A 49-year-old man with chronic insomnia was referred to the pharmacist authors (LF and DP) to initiate and manage the tapering of nightly zolpidem use. Per chart review, the patient had complaints of insomnia for more than 30 years. His care had been transferred to a Nebraska clinic 5 years earlier, with a medication list that included zolpidem controlled release (CR) 12.5 mg nightly. Since then, multiple interventions to achieve cessation had been tried, including counseling on sleep hygiene, adjunct antidepressant use, and abrupt discontinuation. Each of these methods was unsuccessful. So, his family physician (SS) reached out to the pharmacist authors (LF and DP).

THE APPROACH

Due to the patient’s long history of zolpidem use, a lack of literature on the topic, and worry for withdrawal symptoms, a taper schedule was designed utilizing various benzodiazepine taper resources for guidance. The proposed taper utilized 5-mg immediate release (IR) tablets to ensure ease of tapering. The taper ranged from 20% to 43% weekly reductions based on the ability to split the zolpidem tablet in half.

DISCUSSION

Zolpidem is a sedative-hypnotic medication indicated for the treatment of insomnia when used at therapeutic dosing (ie, 5 to 10 mg nightly). Anecdotal efficacy, accompanied by weak chronic insomnia guideline recommendations, has led prescribers to use zolpidem as a chronic medication to treat insomnia.^1,2 There is evidence of dependence and possible seizures from supratherapeutic zolpidem doses in the hundreds of milligrams, raising safety concerns regarding abuse, dependence, and withdrawal seizures in chronic use.^2,3

Additionally, there is limited evidence regarding the appropriate process of discontinuing zolpidem after chronic use.² Often a taper schedule—similar to those used with benzodiazepine medications—is used as a reference for discontinuation.¹ The hypothetical goal of a taper is to prevent withdrawal effects such as rebound insomnia, anxiety, palpitations, and seizures.³ However, an extended taper may not actually be necessary with chronic zolpidem patients.

Tapering with minimal adverse effects

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested minimal, if not complete, absence of rebound or withdrawal effects with short-term zolpidem use.⁴ The same appears to be true of patients with long-term use. In a study, Roehrs and colleagues⁵ explored whether long-term treatment (defined as 8 months) caused rebound insomnia upon abrupt withdrawal. The investigators concluded that people with primary insomnia do not experience rebound insomnia or withdrawal symptoms with chronic, therapeutic dosing.

This case documents a successfully accelerated taper for a patient with a chronic history (> 5 years) of zolpidem use.

Another study involving 92 elderly patients on long-term treatment of zolpidem (defined as > 1 month, with average around 9.9 ± 6.2 years) experienced only 1 or 2 nights of rebound insomnia during a month-long taper.^1,6 Following that, they experienced improvements in initiation and staying asleep.

A possible explanation for the lack of dependence or withdrawal symptoms in patients chronically treated with zolpidem is the pharmacokinetic profile. While the selectivity of the binding sites differentiates this medication from benzodiazepines, the additional fact of a short half-life, and no repeated dosing throughout the day, likely limit the risk of experiencing withdrawal symptoms.¹ The daily periods of minimal zolpidem exposure in the body may limit the amount of physical dependence.

Continue to: Discontinuation of zolpidem

Discontinuation of zolpidem

The 49-year-old man had a history of failed abrupt discontinuation of zolpidem in the past (without noted withdrawal symptoms). Thus, various benzodiazepine taper resources were consulted to develop a taper schedule.

We switched our patient from the zolpidem CR 12.5 mg nightly to 10 mg of the IR formulation, and the pharmacists proposed 20% to 43% weekly decreases in dosing based on dosage strengths. At the initial 3-day follow-up (having taken 10 mg nightly for 3 days), the patient reported a quicker onset of sleep but an inability to sleep through the night. The patient denied withdrawal symptoms or any significant impact to his daily routines. These results encouraged a progression to the next step of the taper. For the next 9 days, the patient took 5 mg nightly, rather than the pharmacist-advised dosing of alternating 5 mg and 10 mg nightly, and reported similar outcomes at his next visit.

This success led to the discontinuation of scheduled zolpidem. The patient was also given a prescription of 2.5 mg, as needed, if insomnia rebounded. No adverse effects were noted despite the accelerated taper. Based on patient response and motivation, the taper had progressed more quickly than scheduled, resulting in 3 days of 10 mg, 9 days of 5 mg, and 1 final day of 2.5 mg that was used when the patient had trouble falling asleep. At the 6-month follow-up, the patient informed the physician that he had neither experienced insomnia nor used any further medication.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case documents a successfully accelerated taper for a patient with a chronic history (> 5 years) of zolpidem use. Although withdrawal is often patient specific, this case suggests the risk is low despite the chronic usage. This further adds to the literature suggesting against the need for an extended taper, and possibly a taper at all, when using recommended doses of chronic zolpidem. This is a significant difference compared to past practices that drew from literature-based benzodiazepine tapers.⁶ This case serves as an observational point of reference for clinicians who are assisting patients with chronic zolpidem tapers.

CORRESPONDENCE
Logan Franck, PharmD, 986145 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-6145; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 49-year-old man with chronic insomnia was referred to the pharmacist authors (LF and DP) to initiate and manage the tapering of nightly zolpidem use. Per chart review, the patient had complaints of insomnia for more than 30 years. His care had been transferred to a Nebraska clinic 5 years earlier, with a medication list that included zolpidem controlled release (CR) 12.5 mg nightly. Since then, multiple interventions to achieve cessation had been tried, including counseling on sleep hygiene, adjunct antidepressant use, and abrupt discontinuation. Each of these methods was unsuccessful. So, his family physician (SS) reached out to the pharmacist authors (LF and DP).

THE APPROACH

Due to the patient’s long history of zolpidem use, a lack of literature on the topic, and worry for withdrawal symptoms, a taper schedule was designed utilizing various benzodiazepine taper resources for guidance. The proposed taper utilized 5-mg immediate release (IR) tablets to ensure ease of tapering. The taper ranged from 20% to 43% weekly reductions based on the ability to split the zolpidem tablet in half.

DISCUSSION

Zolpidem is a sedative-hypnotic medication indicated for the treatment of insomnia when used at therapeutic dosing (ie, 5 to 10 mg nightly). Anecdotal efficacy, accompanied by weak chronic insomnia guideline recommendations, has led prescribers to use zolpidem as a chronic medication to treat insomnia.^1,2 There is evidence of dependence and possible seizures from supratherapeutic zolpidem doses in the hundreds of milligrams, raising safety concerns regarding abuse, dependence, and withdrawal seizures in chronic use.^2,3

Additionally, there is limited evidence regarding the appropriate process of discontinuing zolpidem after chronic use.² Often a taper schedule—similar to those used with benzodiazepine medications—is used as a reference for discontinuation.¹ The hypothetical goal of a taper is to prevent withdrawal effects such as rebound insomnia, anxiety, palpitations, and seizures.³ However, an extended taper may not actually be necessary with chronic zolpidem patients.

Tapering with minimal adverse effects

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested minimal, if not complete, absence of rebound or withdrawal effects with short-term zolpidem use.⁴ The same appears to be true of patients with long-term use. In a study, Roehrs and colleagues⁵ explored whether long-term treatment (defined as 8 months) caused rebound insomnia upon abrupt withdrawal. The investigators concluded that people with primary insomnia do not experience rebound insomnia or withdrawal symptoms with chronic, therapeutic dosing.

This case documents a successfully accelerated taper for a patient with a chronic history (> 5 years) of zolpidem use.

Another study involving 92 elderly patients on long-term treatment of zolpidem (defined as > 1 month, with average around 9.9 ± 6.2 years) experienced only 1 or 2 nights of rebound insomnia during a month-long taper.^1,6 Following that, they experienced improvements in initiation and staying asleep.

A possible explanation for the lack of dependence or withdrawal symptoms in patients chronically treated with zolpidem is the pharmacokinetic profile. While the selectivity of the binding sites differentiates this medication from benzodiazepines, the additional fact of a short half-life, and no repeated dosing throughout the day, likely limit the risk of experiencing withdrawal symptoms.¹ The daily periods of minimal zolpidem exposure in the body may limit the amount of physical dependence.

Continue to: Discontinuation of zolpidem

Discontinuation of zolpidem

The 49-year-old man had a history of failed abrupt discontinuation of zolpidem in the past (without noted withdrawal symptoms). Thus, various benzodiazepine taper resources were consulted to develop a taper schedule.

We switched our patient from the zolpidem CR 12.5 mg nightly to 10 mg of the IR formulation, and the pharmacists proposed 20% to 43% weekly decreases in dosing based on dosage strengths. At the initial 3-day follow-up (having taken 10 mg nightly for 3 days), the patient reported a quicker onset of sleep but an inability to sleep through the night. The patient denied withdrawal symptoms or any significant impact to his daily routines. These results encouraged a progression to the next step of the taper. For the next 9 days, the patient took 5 mg nightly, rather than the pharmacist-advised dosing of alternating 5 mg and 10 mg nightly, and reported similar outcomes at his next visit.

This success led to the discontinuation of scheduled zolpidem. The patient was also given a prescription of 2.5 mg, as needed, if insomnia rebounded. No adverse effects were noted despite the accelerated taper. Based on patient response and motivation, the taper had progressed more quickly than scheduled, resulting in 3 days of 10 mg, 9 days of 5 mg, and 1 final day of 2.5 mg that was used when the patient had trouble falling asleep. At the 6-month follow-up, the patient informed the physician that he had neither experienced insomnia nor used any further medication.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case documents a successfully accelerated taper for a patient with a chronic history (> 5 years) of zolpidem use. Although withdrawal is often patient specific, this case suggests the risk is low despite the chronic usage. This further adds to the literature suggesting against the need for an extended taper, and possibly a taper at all, when using recommended doses of chronic zolpidem. This is a significant difference compared to past practices that drew from literature-based benzodiazepine tapers.⁶ This case serves as an observational point of reference for clinicians who are assisting patients with chronic zolpidem tapers.

CORRESPONDENCE
Logan Franck, PharmD, 986145 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-6145; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 49-year-old man with chronic insomnia was referred to the pharmacist authors (LF and DP) to initiate and manage the tapering of nightly zolpidem use. Per chart review, the patient had complaints of insomnia for more than 30 years. His care had been transferred to a Nebraska clinic 5 years earlier, with a medication list that included zolpidem controlled release (CR) 12.5 mg nightly. Since then, multiple interventions to achieve cessation had been tried, including counseling on sleep hygiene, adjunct antidepressant use, and abrupt discontinuation. Each of these methods was unsuccessful. So, his family physician (SS) reached out to the pharmacist authors (LF and DP).

THE APPROACH

Due to the patient’s long history of zolpidem use, a lack of literature on the topic, and worry for withdrawal symptoms, a taper schedule was designed utilizing various benzodiazepine taper resources for guidance. The proposed taper utilized 5-mg immediate release (IR) tablets to ensure ease of tapering. The taper ranged from 20% to 43% weekly reductions based on the ability to split the zolpidem tablet in half.

DISCUSSION

Zolpidem is a sedative-hypnotic medication indicated for the treatment of insomnia when used at therapeutic dosing (ie, 5 to 10 mg nightly). Anecdotal efficacy, accompanied by weak chronic insomnia guideline recommendations, has led prescribers to use zolpidem as a chronic medication to treat insomnia.^1,2 There is evidence of dependence and possible seizures from supratherapeutic zolpidem doses in the hundreds of milligrams, raising safety concerns regarding abuse, dependence, and withdrawal seizures in chronic use.^2,3

Additionally, there is limited evidence regarding the appropriate process of discontinuing zolpidem after chronic use.² Often a taper schedule—similar to those used with benzodiazepine medications—is used as a reference for discontinuation.¹ The hypothetical goal of a taper is to prevent withdrawal effects such as rebound insomnia, anxiety, palpitations, and seizures.³ However, an extended taper may not actually be necessary with chronic zolpidem patients.

Tapering with minimal adverse effects

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies have suggested minimal, if not complete, absence of rebound or withdrawal effects with short-term zolpidem use.⁴ The same appears to be true of patients with long-term use. In a study, Roehrs and colleagues⁵ explored whether long-term treatment (defined as 8 months) caused rebound insomnia upon abrupt withdrawal. The investigators concluded that people with primary insomnia do not experience rebound insomnia or withdrawal symptoms with chronic, therapeutic dosing.

This case documents a successfully accelerated taper for a patient with a chronic history (> 5 years) of zolpidem use.

Another study involving 92 elderly patients on long-term treatment of zolpidem (defined as > 1 month, with average around 9.9 ± 6.2 years) experienced only 1 or 2 nights of rebound insomnia during a month-long taper.^1,6 Following that, they experienced improvements in initiation and staying asleep.

A possible explanation for the lack of dependence or withdrawal symptoms in patients chronically treated with zolpidem is the pharmacokinetic profile. While the selectivity of the binding sites differentiates this medication from benzodiazepines, the additional fact of a short half-life, and no repeated dosing throughout the day, likely limit the risk of experiencing withdrawal symptoms.¹ The daily periods of minimal zolpidem exposure in the body may limit the amount of physical dependence.

Continue to: Discontinuation of zolpidem

Discontinuation of zolpidem

The 49-year-old man had a history of failed abrupt discontinuation of zolpidem in the past (without noted withdrawal symptoms). Thus, various benzodiazepine taper resources were consulted to develop a taper schedule.

We switched our patient from the zolpidem CR 12.5 mg nightly to 10 mg of the IR formulation, and the pharmacists proposed 20% to 43% weekly decreases in dosing based on dosage strengths. At the initial 3-day follow-up (having taken 10 mg nightly for 3 days), the patient reported a quicker onset of sleep but an inability to sleep through the night. The patient denied withdrawal symptoms or any significant impact to his daily routines. These results encouraged a progression to the next step of the taper. For the next 9 days, the patient took 5 mg nightly, rather than the pharmacist-advised dosing of alternating 5 mg and 10 mg nightly, and reported similar outcomes at his next visit.

This success led to the discontinuation of scheduled zolpidem. The patient was also given a prescription of 2.5 mg, as needed, if insomnia rebounded. No adverse effects were noted despite the accelerated taper. Based on patient response and motivation, the taper had progressed more quickly than scheduled, resulting in 3 days of 10 mg, 9 days of 5 mg, and 1 final day of 2.5 mg that was used when the patient had trouble falling asleep. At the 6-month follow-up, the patient informed the physician that he had neither experienced insomnia nor used any further medication.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case documents a successfully accelerated taper for a patient with a chronic history (> 5 years) of zolpidem use. Although withdrawal is often patient specific, this case suggests the risk is low despite the chronic usage. This further adds to the literature suggesting against the need for an extended taper, and possibly a taper at all, when using recommended doses of chronic zolpidem. This is a significant difference compared to past practices that drew from literature-based benzodiazepine tapers.⁶ This case serves as an observational point of reference for clinicians who are assisting patients with chronic zolpidem tapers.

CORRESPONDENCE
Logan Franck, PharmD, 986145 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-6145; [email protected]

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are fundamental to the healthcare practitioners’ ability to provide vital intravenous fluids, medications, and blood products, and as a prophylactic measure prior to some procedures, making insertion of these devices the most common in-hospital invasive procedure in pediatrics.^1,2 Despite the prevalence and ubiquity of PIVCs,¹ successful insertion in pediatrics is problematic,^3-5 and device dysfunction prior to completion of treatment is common.^3,6 The inability to attain timely PIVC access and maintain postinsertion function has significant short- and long-term sequelae, including pain and anxiety for children and their parents,^3,7 delays in treatment,³ prolonged hospitalization,⁸ and increased healthcare-associated costs.^8-10

Approximately 50% of pediatric PIVC insertions are challenging, often requiring upwards of four insertion attempts, and a similar proportion fail prior to treatment completion.^3,11 Exactly why PIVC insertion is difficult in children, and the mechanisms of failure, are unknown. It is likely to be multifaceted and related to factors concerning the patient (eg, comorbidities, age, gender, adiposity),^11,12 provider (eg, insertion practice, care, and maintenance),^3,13,14 device (eg, size, length, catheter-to-vein ratio),^15,16 and therapy (eg, vessel irritation).^11,13,17 Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hospitalized pediatric patients report that the average PIVC dwell is approximately 48 hours, suggesting multiple PIVCs are required to complete a single admission.^3,18

Conventionally, PIVC insertion involved physical assessment through palpation and visualization (landmark approach), and although postinsertion care varies among healthcare facilities, minimal requirements are a dressing over the insertion site and regular flushes to ensure device patency.^1,3,19 Recently, clinicians have investigated insertion and management practices to improve PIVC outcomes. These can be grouped into techniques—the art of doing (the manner of performance, or the details, of any surgical operation, experiment, or mechanical act) and technologies—the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.²⁰ Individual studies have examined the outcomes of new techniques and technologies; however, an overall estimation of their clinical significance or effect is unknown.^11,18 Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically search published studies, conduct a pooled analysis of findings, and report the success of various techniques and technologies to improve insertion success and reduce overall PIVC failure.

Design

The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020165288). This review followed Cochrane Collaboration systematic review methods²¹ and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.²²

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met predefined criteria: (1) RCT design; (2) included standard-length PIVC; (3) participants aged 0 to 18 years, excluding preterm infants (less than 36 weeks’ gestation); (4) required PIVC insertion in an inpatient healthcare setting; and (5) reported PIVC insertion outcomes (described below). Studies were excluded if they were cluster or crossover RCTs, published before 2010, or not written in English.

Interventions

Interventions were PIVC insertion and management techniques, defined as “the manner of performance, or the details, of any surgical operation, experiment, or mechanical act” (eg, needle-tip positioning, vein selection [site of insertion], comfort measures, and flushing regimen), or technologies, defined as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purpose” (eg, vessel visualization, catheter material, and catheter design), compared with current practice, defined as commonly known, practiced, or accepted (eg, landmark PIVC insertion).²⁰

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcome was first-time insertion success (one skin puncture to achieve PIVC insertion; can aspirate and flush PIVC without resistance).²³ Secondary outcomes included: (1) overall PIVC insertion success²³; (2) all-cause PIVC failure (cessation of PIVC function prior to treatment completion)⁶; (3) dwell time¹⁴; (4) PIVC insertion time; (5) insertion attempts²³; (6) individual elements of failure (dislodgement, extravasation, infection, occlusion, pain, phlebitis, and thrombosis)⁶; and (7) patient/parent satisfaction. Some outcomes evaluated were author defined within each study (patient/parent satisfaction, pain score).

Systematic Search

A search of the Cochrane Library and Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), US National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and Embase databases between 2010 to 2020 was undertaken on June 23, 2020, and updated March 4, 2021. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and relevant keywords and their variants were used in collaboration with a healthcare librarian (Appendix Table 1). Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies.¹⁹ Studies were included if two authors (TMK and JS) independently agreed they met the inclusion criteria.

Data Extraction

Two authors (TMK/JS) independently abstracted study data using a standardized form managed in Microsoft Excel.

Quality Assessment

Included studies were assessed by two authors (TMK and JS) for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool.^21,24 The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)²⁵ approach. Individual RCTs began at high quality, downgraded by one level for “serious” or two levels for “very serious” study limitations, including high risk of bias, serious inconsistency, publication bias, or indirectness of evidence.

Data Analysis and Synthesis

Where two or more trials with evidence of study homogeneity (trial interventions and population) were identified, meta-analysis using RevMan 5 (version 5.4.1)²⁶ with random effects was conducted. Descriptive statistics summarized study population, interventions, and results. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) plus 95% CI. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) plus 95% CI and the standardized mean difference (SMD) (difference between experimental and control groups across trials) reported as the summary statistic.

Subgroup analyses, where possible, included: difficult intravenous access (DIVA), defined by study authors; age (0-3 years; >3 years up to 18 years); hospital setting during PIVC insertion (awake clinical environment vs awake emergency department vs asleep operating room setting); and by operator (bedside nurse, anesthesiologist).

Search Strategy

Figure 1 describes study selection in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.²² We identified 1877 records, and 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. An additional 3 studies were identified in the updated search, totaling 21 studies included in the final review.

Study Characteristics

Collectively, 3237 patients and 3098 successful PIVC insertions were reported. In the included studies, 139 patients did not receive a PIVC owing to failed insertion. Ten studies examined techniques (needle-tip positioning,²⁷ vein choice for PIVC insertion,²⁸ flushing regimen,^29-31 nonpharmacological^32,33 dressing and securement,^34,35 and pharmacological comfort measures³⁶), and 11 studies examined technologies (vessel visualization including ultrasound,^4,37-40 near-infrared [image of vein projected onto the skin],^37,41-44 transillumination [transmission of light through the skin],⁴⁵ and catheter design⁴⁶). Table 1 outlines characteristics of included studies. Most trials were single center and conducted in an acute inpatient pediatric-specific setting^{4,27-34,36-41,44-46} or dedicated pediatric unit in a large public hospital^35,43,44; one study was a multicenter trial.³⁶ All trials described evidence of ethical review board approval and participant consent for trial participation.

Study Quality

The certainty of evidence at the outcome level varied from moderate to very low. Table 2 and Table 3 outline the summary of findings for landmark insertion compared with ultrasound-guided and landmark insertion compared with near-infrared PIVC insertion, respectively. The remaining summary-of-findings comparisons that included more than one study or addressed clinically relevant questions can be found in Appendix Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. At the individual study level, most domains were assessed as low risk of bias (Appendix Figure 1).

Effectiveness of Interventions

Technology to Improve PIVC Outcomes

Landmark compared with ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion. Five studies compared PIVC insertion success outcomes when traditional landmark technique was used in comparison with ultrasound guidance (Appendix Figure 2). Four studies (592 patients)^4,37,38,40 assessed the primary outcome of first-time insertion success. Appendix Figure 2.1 demonstrates PIVCs were 1.5 times more likely to be inserted on first attempt when ultrasound guidance was used compared with landmark insertion (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.02-2.50). When examining only studies that included DIVA,^4,38,40 the effect size increased and CIs tightened (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.24). No evidence of effect was demonstrated when comparing this outcome in children aged 0 to 3 years (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.88-2.18) or >3 years (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.35-1.51. Two studies^4,38 demonstrated that first-time insertion success with ultrasound (compared with landmark) was almost twice as likely (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.44-2.42) after induction of anesthesia in contrast to no effect in studies undertaken in the emergency department^37,40 (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.68-2.56). One study³⁹ (339 patients) reported the secondary outcomes of extravasation/infiltration and phlebitis. Extravasation/infiltration was nearly twice as likely with ultrasound compared with landmark insertion (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.01-3.22); however, there was no evidence of effect related to phlebitis (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.07-1.50).

Four studies^4,38-40 compared the review’s secondary outcome of PIVC insertion success (Appendix Figure 2.2), with no evidence of an effect (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28). No improvement in overall insertion success was demonstrated in the following subgroup analyses: patients with DIVA (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47), children under 3 years of age (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90-1.68), and PIVCs inserted by anesthesiologists (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.91-1.72). One study measured this outcome in children aged >3 years (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29) with no effect and in the emergency department (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20), where ultrasound guidance improved overall PIVC insertion success.

Landmark compared with near-infrared PIVC insertion. First-time insertion success (Appendix Figure 3.1) was reported in five studies^37,41-44 and 778 patients with no evidence of effect (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59). Subgroup analysis by DIVA^41-44 demonstrated first-time insertion success more than doubled with near-infrared technology compared with landmark (RR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.02-7.24). Subgroup analysis by age did not demonstrate an effect in children younger than 3 years or children older than 3 years. Subgroup analysis by clinician inserting did not demonstrate an effect. Of the five studies reporting time to insertion,^37,41-44 two^41,42 reported median rather than mean, so could not be included in the analysis. Of the remaining three studies,^37,43,44 near-infrared reduced PIVC time to insertion (Appendix Figure 3.2).

Four studies^37,42-44 reported the number of attempts required for successful PIVC insertion where no difference was detected; however, subgroup analysis of patients with DIVA^43,44 and insertion by bedside nurse^43,44 demonstrated fewer PIVC insertion attempts and a reduction in insertion time, respectively, with the use of near-infrared technology (Appendix Figure 3.3).

Landmark compared with transillumination PIVC insertion. One study⁴⁵ (112 participants) found a positive effect with the use of transillumination and first-time insertion success (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.54), reduced time to insertion (MD, –9.70; 95% CI, –17.40 to –2.00), and fewer insertion attempts (MD, –0.24; 95% CI, –0.40 to –0.08) compared with landmark insertion.

Long PIVC compared with short PIVC. A single study⁴⁶ demonstrated a 70% reduction in PIVC failure (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) when long PIVCs were compared with standard PIVCs. Specifically, PIVC failure due to infiltration was reduced with the use of a long PIVC (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.61). There was no difference in insertion success (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05) or phlebitis (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.07-15.38).

Technique to Improve PIVC Outcomes

Static ultrasound-guided compared with dynamic needle-tip PIVC insertion. In a single study comparing variation in ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion technique²⁷ (60 patients), dynamic needle-tip positioning improved first-time insertion success (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00) and overall PIVC insertion success (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.91).

Variation in vein choice for successful PIVC insertion. Insertion of PIVC in the cephalic vein of the forearm improved insertion success in a single study²⁸ of 172 patients compared with insertion in the dorsal vein of the hand (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.69) and great saphenous vein (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49).

Variation in PIVC flush. Heparinized saline compared with 0.9% sodium chloride flush²⁹ did not reduce infiltration (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.03-2.84), occlusion (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.18-19.63) during dwell, or hematoma (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.06-14.33) at insertion.

Two studies^30,31 (253 participants) compared PIVC flush frequency (daily compared with more frequent flush regimes). There was no reduction in overall PIVC failure, extravasation/infiltration, phlebitis, or occlusion during dwell (Appendix Figure 4.1-4.4). Additionally, no effect was demonstrated when a single study³¹ investigated volume of flush on extravasation/infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, or occlusion.

Variation in dressing and securement. One trial (330 participants)³⁴ demonstrated that integrated securement and dressing (ISD) product reduced PIVC failure (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93) and occlusion (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.94) compared with bordered polyurethane (BPU). There was no difference in the proportion of PIVC failure between BPU compared with tissue adhesive (TA) (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52-1.06). When comparing individual elements of PIVC failure, there was no evidence of effect between BPU and ISD in reducing infiltration (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43-1.27), dislodgement (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.58), or phlebitis/pain (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.39); similarly, the use of TA compared with BPU did not reduce failure due to infiltration (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.33), dislodgement (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.10-1.35), occlusion (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.45-1.84), or phlebitis/pain (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.05).

A comparison of protective covering³⁵ (60 participants) did not demonstrate a significant improvement in PIVC dwell (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.25-1.41).

Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. A comparison of nonpharmacological comfort techniques, including music during insertion (one trial, 42 participants), did not improve first-time insertion success between the two groups (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03). Similarly, incorporation of a clown³² (47 patients) as method of distraction did not demonstrate an effect on PIVC insertion success (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.06) or time to PIVC insertion (MD, –0.20; 95% CI, –1.74 to 1.34). In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled RCT³⁶ of pharmacological techniques to reduce PIVC insertion-related pain (504 participants), no evidence of effect was established between the placebo control group and the active analgesia in overall PIVC insertion success (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04).

Despite their pervasiveness, PIVC insertion in children is problematic and premature device failure is common, yet effective strategies to overcome these challenges have not been systematically reviewed to date. This systematic review (including meta-analysis) examines techniques and technologies to improve PIVC insertion success and reduce overall failure. We demonstrated ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion significantly improved first-time insertion success in general pediatrics.

Analogous to a previous systematic review in adult patients (1660 patients, odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.37-4.52; P = .003; I², 69%),⁴⁷ we confirm ultrasound improves first-time PIVC insertion success, most notably in pediatric patients with difficult intravenous access. However, widespread use of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion is limited by operator skills, as it requires practice and dexterity, especially for DIVA patients.^5,47 Healthcare facilities should prioritize teaching and training to support acquisition of this skill to reduce the deleterious effects of multiple insertion attempts, including vessel damage, delayed treatment, pain, and anxiety associated with needles.

Other vessel-visualization technologies (near-infrared and transillumination) did not improve PIVC insertion in generic pediatrics.⁵ However, they significantly improved first-time insertion, time to insertion, and number of insertion attempts in patients with DIVA and should be considered in the absence of ultrasound-proficient clinicians.

Although vessel-visualization technologies provide efficient PIVC insertion, complication-free PIVC dwell is equally important. Few studies examined both insertion outcomes and PIVC postinsertion outcomes (dwell time and complications during treatment). One study reported more postinsertion complications ( eg, infiltration) with ultrasound compared with landmark technique.³⁹ Vessel-visualization tools should be used to assess the vein to guide PIVC choice. Pandurangadu et al¹⁵ reported increased PIVC failure when less than 65% of the catheter length resides within the vein; this was consistent with the single RCT⁴⁶ included in this review that demonstrated reduced infiltration with long PIVCs compared with standard-length PIVCs. To reduce this knowledge practice gap, it is critical that clinicians continue to evaluate and publish findings of novel techniques to improve PIVC outcomes.

The review findings have important implications for future research, clinical practice, and policy. Unlike earlier reviews,⁴⁸ vessel-visualization technologies, particularly ultrasound, improved PIVC insertion success; however, during-dwell outcomes were inconsistently reported, and future research should include these. In addition, while there is evidence to support these new technologies, adequate training and resources to ensure a sustained, skilled workforce to optimize PIVC insertion are necessary for successful implementation.

Our study had some limitations, including the methodological quality of included studies (small sample size and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity). Subgroup analyses were undertaken to reduce the heterogeneity inherent in pediatric populations; however, future studies should stratify for patient (age, DIVA, indication for insertion) and setting (conscious/unconscious, emergent/nonemergent) factors. Incomplete or absent outcome definitions and varied reporting measures (eg, median vs mean) prevented calculation of the pooled incidence of catheter failure and dwell time.

Our review also has notable strengths. Two independent investigators performed a rigorous literature search. Only RCTs were included, ensuring the most robust methods to inform clinically important questions. The primary and secondary outcomes were derived from patient-centered outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis describes the pooled incidence of PIVC insertion success and outcomes, including complication and failure in pediatric patients. PIVC insertion with ultrasound should be used to improve insertion success in generic pediatric patients, and any form of vessel-visualization technology (ultrasound, near-infrared, transillumination) should be considered for anticipated difficult insertions.

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are fundamental to the healthcare practitioners’ ability to provide vital intravenous fluids, medications, and blood products, and as a prophylactic measure prior to some procedures, making insertion of these devices the most common in-hospital invasive procedure in pediatrics.^1,2 Despite the prevalence and ubiquity of PIVCs,¹ successful insertion in pediatrics is problematic,^3-5 and device dysfunction prior to completion of treatment is common.^3,6 The inability to attain timely PIVC access and maintain postinsertion function has significant short- and long-term sequelae, including pain and anxiety for children and their parents,^3,7 delays in treatment,³ prolonged hospitalization,⁸ and increased healthcare-associated costs.^8-10

Approximately 50% of pediatric PIVC insertions are challenging, often requiring upwards of four insertion attempts, and a similar proportion fail prior to treatment completion.^3,11 Exactly why PIVC insertion is difficult in children, and the mechanisms of failure, are unknown. It is likely to be multifaceted and related to factors concerning the patient (eg, comorbidities, age, gender, adiposity),^11,12 provider (eg, insertion practice, care, and maintenance),^3,13,14 device (eg, size, length, catheter-to-vein ratio),^15,16 and therapy (eg, vessel irritation).^11,13,17 Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hospitalized pediatric patients report that the average PIVC dwell is approximately 48 hours, suggesting multiple PIVCs are required to complete a single admission.^3,18

Conventionally, PIVC insertion involved physical assessment through palpation and visualization (landmark approach), and although postinsertion care varies among healthcare facilities, minimal requirements are a dressing over the insertion site and regular flushes to ensure device patency.^1,3,19 Recently, clinicians have investigated insertion and management practices to improve PIVC outcomes. These can be grouped into techniques—the art of doing (the manner of performance, or the details, of any surgical operation, experiment, or mechanical act) and technologies—the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.²⁰ Individual studies have examined the outcomes of new techniques and technologies; however, an overall estimation of their clinical significance or effect is unknown.^11,18 Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically search published studies, conduct a pooled analysis of findings, and report the success of various techniques and technologies to improve insertion success and reduce overall PIVC failure.

Design

The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020165288). This review followed Cochrane Collaboration systematic review methods²¹ and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.²²

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met predefined criteria: (1) RCT design; (2) included standard-length PIVC; (3) participants aged 0 to 18 years, excluding preterm infants (less than 36 weeks’ gestation); (4) required PIVC insertion in an inpatient healthcare setting; and (5) reported PIVC insertion outcomes (described below). Studies were excluded if they were cluster or crossover RCTs, published before 2010, or not written in English.

Interventions

Interventions were PIVC insertion and management techniques, defined as “the manner of performance, or the details, of any surgical operation, experiment, or mechanical act” (eg, needle-tip positioning, vein selection [site of insertion], comfort measures, and flushing regimen), or technologies, defined as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purpose” (eg, vessel visualization, catheter material, and catheter design), compared with current practice, defined as commonly known, practiced, or accepted (eg, landmark PIVC insertion).²⁰

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcome was first-time insertion success (one skin puncture to achieve PIVC insertion; can aspirate and flush PIVC without resistance).²³ Secondary outcomes included: (1) overall PIVC insertion success²³; (2) all-cause PIVC failure (cessation of PIVC function prior to treatment completion)⁶; (3) dwell time¹⁴; (4) PIVC insertion time; (5) insertion attempts²³; (6) individual elements of failure (dislodgement, extravasation, infection, occlusion, pain, phlebitis, and thrombosis)⁶; and (7) patient/parent satisfaction. Some outcomes evaluated were author defined within each study (patient/parent satisfaction, pain score).

Systematic Search

A search of the Cochrane Library and Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), US National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and Embase databases between 2010 to 2020 was undertaken on June 23, 2020, and updated March 4, 2021. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and relevant keywords and their variants were used in collaboration with a healthcare librarian (Appendix Table 1). Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies.¹⁹ Studies were included if two authors (TMK and JS) independently agreed they met the inclusion criteria.

Data Extraction

Two authors (TMK/JS) independently abstracted study data using a standardized form managed in Microsoft Excel.

Quality Assessment

Included studies were assessed by two authors (TMK and JS) for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool.^21,24 The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)²⁵ approach. Individual RCTs began at high quality, downgraded by one level for “serious” or two levels for “very serious” study limitations, including high risk of bias, serious inconsistency, publication bias, or indirectness of evidence.

Data Analysis and Synthesis

Where two or more trials with evidence of study homogeneity (trial interventions and population) were identified, meta-analysis using RevMan 5 (version 5.4.1)²⁶ with random effects was conducted. Descriptive statistics summarized study population, interventions, and results. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) plus 95% CI. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) plus 95% CI and the standardized mean difference (SMD) (difference between experimental and control groups across trials) reported as the summary statistic.

Subgroup analyses, where possible, included: difficult intravenous access (DIVA), defined by study authors; age (0-3 years; >3 years up to 18 years); hospital setting during PIVC insertion (awake clinical environment vs awake emergency department vs asleep operating room setting); and by operator (bedside nurse, anesthesiologist).

Search Strategy

Figure 1 describes study selection in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.²² We identified 1877 records, and 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. An additional 3 studies were identified in the updated search, totaling 21 studies included in the final review.

Study Characteristics

Collectively, 3237 patients and 3098 successful PIVC insertions were reported. In the included studies, 139 patients did not receive a PIVC owing to failed insertion. Ten studies examined techniques (needle-tip positioning,²⁷ vein choice for PIVC insertion,²⁸ flushing regimen,^29-31 nonpharmacological^32,33 dressing and securement,^34,35 and pharmacological comfort measures³⁶), and 11 studies examined technologies (vessel visualization including ultrasound,^4,37-40 near-infrared [image of vein projected onto the skin],^37,41-44 transillumination [transmission of light through the skin],⁴⁵ and catheter design⁴⁶). Table 1 outlines characteristics of included studies. Most trials were single center and conducted in an acute inpatient pediatric-specific setting^{4,27-34,36-41,44-46} or dedicated pediatric unit in a large public hospital^35,43,44; one study was a multicenter trial.³⁶ All trials described evidence of ethical review board approval and participant consent for trial participation.

Study Quality

The certainty of evidence at the outcome level varied from moderate to very low. Table 2 and Table 3 outline the summary of findings for landmark insertion compared with ultrasound-guided and landmark insertion compared with near-infrared PIVC insertion, respectively. The remaining summary-of-findings comparisons that included more than one study or addressed clinically relevant questions can be found in Appendix Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. At the individual study level, most domains were assessed as low risk of bias (Appendix Figure 1).

Effectiveness of Interventions

Technology to Improve PIVC Outcomes

Landmark compared with ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion. Five studies compared PIVC insertion success outcomes when traditional landmark technique was used in comparison with ultrasound guidance (Appendix Figure 2). Four studies (592 patients)^4,37,38,40 assessed the primary outcome of first-time insertion success. Appendix Figure 2.1 demonstrates PIVCs were 1.5 times more likely to be inserted on first attempt when ultrasound guidance was used compared with landmark insertion (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.02-2.50). When examining only studies that included DIVA,^4,38,40 the effect size increased and CIs tightened (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.24). No evidence of effect was demonstrated when comparing this outcome in children aged 0 to 3 years (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.88-2.18) or >3 years (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.35-1.51. Two studies^4,38 demonstrated that first-time insertion success with ultrasound (compared with landmark) was almost twice as likely (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.44-2.42) after induction of anesthesia in contrast to no effect in studies undertaken in the emergency department^37,40 (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.68-2.56). One study³⁹ (339 patients) reported the secondary outcomes of extravasation/infiltration and phlebitis. Extravasation/infiltration was nearly twice as likely with ultrasound compared with landmark insertion (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.01-3.22); however, there was no evidence of effect related to phlebitis (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.07-1.50).

Four studies^4,38-40 compared the review’s secondary outcome of PIVC insertion success (Appendix Figure 2.2), with no evidence of an effect (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28). No improvement in overall insertion success was demonstrated in the following subgroup analyses: patients with DIVA (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47), children under 3 years of age (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90-1.68), and PIVCs inserted by anesthesiologists (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.91-1.72). One study measured this outcome in children aged >3 years (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29) with no effect and in the emergency department (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20), where ultrasound guidance improved overall PIVC insertion success.

Landmark compared with near-infrared PIVC insertion. First-time insertion success (Appendix Figure 3.1) was reported in five studies^37,41-44 and 778 patients with no evidence of effect (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59). Subgroup analysis by DIVA^41-44 demonstrated first-time insertion success more than doubled with near-infrared technology compared with landmark (RR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.02-7.24). Subgroup analysis by age did not demonstrate an effect in children younger than 3 years or children older than 3 years. Subgroup analysis by clinician inserting did not demonstrate an effect. Of the five studies reporting time to insertion,^37,41-44 two^41,42 reported median rather than mean, so could not be included in the analysis. Of the remaining three studies,^37,43,44 near-infrared reduced PIVC time to insertion (Appendix Figure 3.2).

Four studies^37,42-44 reported the number of attempts required for successful PIVC insertion where no difference was detected; however, subgroup analysis of patients with DIVA^43,44 and insertion by bedside nurse^43,44 demonstrated fewer PIVC insertion attempts and a reduction in insertion time, respectively, with the use of near-infrared technology (Appendix Figure 3.3).

Landmark compared with transillumination PIVC insertion. One study⁴⁵ (112 participants) found a positive effect with the use of transillumination and first-time insertion success (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.54), reduced time to insertion (MD, –9.70; 95% CI, –17.40 to –2.00), and fewer insertion attempts (MD, –0.24; 95% CI, –0.40 to –0.08) compared with landmark insertion.

Long PIVC compared with short PIVC. A single study⁴⁶ demonstrated a 70% reduction in PIVC failure (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) when long PIVCs were compared with standard PIVCs. Specifically, PIVC failure due to infiltration was reduced with the use of a long PIVC (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.61). There was no difference in insertion success (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05) or phlebitis (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.07-15.38).

Technique to Improve PIVC Outcomes

Static ultrasound-guided compared with dynamic needle-tip PIVC insertion. In a single study comparing variation in ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion technique²⁷ (60 patients), dynamic needle-tip positioning improved first-time insertion success (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00) and overall PIVC insertion success (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.91).

Variation in vein choice for successful PIVC insertion. Insertion of PIVC in the cephalic vein of the forearm improved insertion success in a single study²⁸ of 172 patients compared with insertion in the dorsal vein of the hand (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.69) and great saphenous vein (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49).

Variation in PIVC flush. Heparinized saline compared with 0.9% sodium chloride flush²⁹ did not reduce infiltration (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.03-2.84), occlusion (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.18-19.63) during dwell, or hematoma (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.06-14.33) at insertion.

Two studies^30,31 (253 participants) compared PIVC flush frequency (daily compared with more frequent flush regimes). There was no reduction in overall PIVC failure, extravasation/infiltration, phlebitis, or occlusion during dwell (Appendix Figure 4.1-4.4). Additionally, no effect was demonstrated when a single study³¹ investigated volume of flush on extravasation/infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, or occlusion.

Variation in dressing and securement. One trial (330 participants)³⁴ demonstrated that integrated securement and dressing (ISD) product reduced PIVC failure (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93) and occlusion (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.94) compared with bordered polyurethane (BPU). There was no difference in the proportion of PIVC failure between BPU compared with tissue adhesive (TA) (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52-1.06). When comparing individual elements of PIVC failure, there was no evidence of effect between BPU and ISD in reducing infiltration (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43-1.27), dislodgement (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.58), or phlebitis/pain (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.39); similarly, the use of TA compared with BPU did not reduce failure due to infiltration (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.33), dislodgement (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.10-1.35), occlusion (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.45-1.84), or phlebitis/pain (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.05).

A comparison of protective covering³⁵ (60 participants) did not demonstrate a significant improvement in PIVC dwell (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.25-1.41).

Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. A comparison of nonpharmacological comfort techniques, including music during insertion (one trial, 42 participants), did not improve first-time insertion success between the two groups (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03). Similarly, incorporation of a clown³² (47 patients) as method of distraction did not demonstrate an effect on PIVC insertion success (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.06) or time to PIVC insertion (MD, –0.20; 95% CI, –1.74 to 1.34). In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled RCT³⁶ of pharmacological techniques to reduce PIVC insertion-related pain (504 participants), no evidence of effect was established between the placebo control group and the active analgesia in overall PIVC insertion success (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04).

Despite their pervasiveness, PIVC insertion in children is problematic and premature device failure is common, yet effective strategies to overcome these challenges have not been systematically reviewed to date. This systematic review (including meta-analysis) examines techniques and technologies to improve PIVC insertion success and reduce overall failure. We demonstrated ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion significantly improved first-time insertion success in general pediatrics.

Analogous to a previous systematic review in adult patients (1660 patients, odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.37-4.52; P = .003; I², 69%),⁴⁷ we confirm ultrasound improves first-time PIVC insertion success, most notably in pediatric patients with difficult intravenous access. However, widespread use of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion is limited by operator skills, as it requires practice and dexterity, especially for DIVA patients.^5,47 Healthcare facilities should prioritize teaching and training to support acquisition of this skill to reduce the deleterious effects of multiple insertion attempts, including vessel damage, delayed treatment, pain, and anxiety associated with needles.

Other vessel-visualization technologies (near-infrared and transillumination) did not improve PIVC insertion in generic pediatrics.⁵ However, they significantly improved first-time insertion, time to insertion, and number of insertion attempts in patients with DIVA and should be considered in the absence of ultrasound-proficient clinicians.

Although vessel-visualization technologies provide efficient PIVC insertion, complication-free PIVC dwell is equally important. Few studies examined both insertion outcomes and PIVC postinsertion outcomes (dwell time and complications during treatment). One study reported more postinsertion complications ( eg, infiltration) with ultrasound compared with landmark technique.³⁹ Vessel-visualization tools should be used to assess the vein to guide PIVC choice. Pandurangadu et al¹⁵ reported increased PIVC failure when less than 65% of the catheter length resides within the vein; this was consistent with the single RCT⁴⁶ included in this review that demonstrated reduced infiltration with long PIVCs compared with standard-length PIVCs. To reduce this knowledge practice gap, it is critical that clinicians continue to evaluate and publish findings of novel techniques to improve PIVC outcomes.

The review findings have important implications for future research, clinical practice, and policy. Unlike earlier reviews,⁴⁸ vessel-visualization technologies, particularly ultrasound, improved PIVC insertion success; however, during-dwell outcomes were inconsistently reported, and future research should include these. In addition, while there is evidence to support these new technologies, adequate training and resources to ensure a sustained, skilled workforce to optimize PIVC insertion are necessary for successful implementation.

Our study had some limitations, including the methodological quality of included studies (small sample size and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity). Subgroup analyses were undertaken to reduce the heterogeneity inherent in pediatric populations; however, future studies should stratify for patient (age, DIVA, indication for insertion) and setting (conscious/unconscious, emergent/nonemergent) factors. Incomplete or absent outcome definitions and varied reporting measures (eg, median vs mean) prevented calculation of the pooled incidence of catheter failure and dwell time.

Our review also has notable strengths. Two independent investigators performed a rigorous literature search. Only RCTs were included, ensuring the most robust methods to inform clinically important questions. The primary and secondary outcomes were derived from patient-centered outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis describes the pooled incidence of PIVC insertion success and outcomes, including complication and failure in pediatric patients. PIVC insertion with ultrasound should be used to improve insertion success in generic pediatric patients, and any form of vessel-visualization technology (ultrasound, near-infrared, transillumination) should be considered for anticipated difficult insertions.

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are fundamental to the healthcare practitioners’ ability to provide vital intravenous fluids, medications, and blood products, and as a prophylactic measure prior to some procedures, making insertion of these devices the most common in-hospital invasive procedure in pediatrics.^1,2 Despite the prevalence and ubiquity of PIVCs,¹ successful insertion in pediatrics is problematic,^3-5 and device dysfunction prior to completion of treatment is common.^3,6 The inability to attain timely PIVC access and maintain postinsertion function has significant short- and long-term sequelae, including pain and anxiety for children and their parents,^3,7 delays in treatment,³ prolonged hospitalization,⁸ and increased healthcare-associated costs.^8-10

Approximately 50% of pediatric PIVC insertions are challenging, often requiring upwards of four insertion attempts, and a similar proportion fail prior to treatment completion.^3,11 Exactly why PIVC insertion is difficult in children, and the mechanisms of failure, are unknown. It is likely to be multifaceted and related to factors concerning the patient (eg, comorbidities, age, gender, adiposity),^11,12 provider (eg, insertion practice, care, and maintenance),^3,13,14 device (eg, size, length, catheter-to-vein ratio),^15,16 and therapy (eg, vessel irritation).^11,13,17 Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in hospitalized pediatric patients report that the average PIVC dwell is approximately 48 hours, suggesting multiple PIVCs are required to complete a single admission.^3,18

Conventionally, PIVC insertion involved physical assessment through palpation and visualization (landmark approach), and although postinsertion care varies among healthcare facilities, minimal requirements are a dressing over the insertion site and regular flushes to ensure device patency.^1,3,19 Recently, clinicians have investigated insertion and management practices to improve PIVC outcomes. These can be grouped into techniques—the art of doing (the manner of performance, or the details, of any surgical operation, experiment, or mechanical act) and technologies—the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes.²⁰ Individual studies have examined the outcomes of new techniques and technologies; however, an overall estimation of their clinical significance or effect is unknown.^11,18 Therefore, the aim of this review was to systematically search published studies, conduct a pooled analysis of findings, and report the success of various techniques and technologies to improve insertion success and reduce overall PIVC failure.

Design

The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020165288). This review followed Cochrane Collaboration systematic review methods²¹ and was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.²²

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met predefined criteria: (1) RCT design; (2) included standard-length PIVC; (3) participants aged 0 to 18 years, excluding preterm infants (less than 36 weeks’ gestation); (4) required PIVC insertion in an inpatient healthcare setting; and (5) reported PIVC insertion outcomes (described below). Studies were excluded if they were cluster or crossover RCTs, published before 2010, or not written in English.

Interventions

Interventions were PIVC insertion and management techniques, defined as “the manner of performance, or the details, of any surgical operation, experiment, or mechanical act” (eg, needle-tip positioning, vein selection [site of insertion], comfort measures, and flushing regimen), or technologies, defined as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purpose” (eg, vessel visualization, catheter material, and catheter design), compared with current practice, defined as commonly known, practiced, or accepted (eg, landmark PIVC insertion).²⁰

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcome was first-time insertion success (one skin puncture to achieve PIVC insertion; can aspirate and flush PIVC without resistance).²³ Secondary outcomes included: (1) overall PIVC insertion success²³; (2) all-cause PIVC failure (cessation of PIVC function prior to treatment completion)⁶; (3) dwell time¹⁴; (4) PIVC insertion time; (5) insertion attempts²³; (6) individual elements of failure (dislodgement, extravasation, infection, occlusion, pain, phlebitis, and thrombosis)⁶; and (7) patient/parent satisfaction. Some outcomes evaluated were author defined within each study (patient/parent satisfaction, pain score).

Systematic Search

A search of the Cochrane Library and Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), US National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and Embase databases between 2010 to 2020 was undertaken on June 23, 2020, and updated March 4, 2021. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and relevant keywords and their variants were used in collaboration with a healthcare librarian (Appendix Table 1). Additional studies were identified through hand searches of bibliographies.¹⁹ Studies were included if two authors (TMK and JS) independently agreed they met the inclusion criteria.

Data Extraction

Two authors (TMK/JS) independently abstracted study data using a standardized form managed in Microsoft Excel.

Quality Assessment

Included studies were assessed by two authors (TMK and JS) for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB2) tool.^21,24 The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)²⁵ approach. Individual RCTs began at high quality, downgraded by one level for “serious” or two levels for “very serious” study limitations, including high risk of bias, serious inconsistency, publication bias, or indirectness of evidence.

Data Analysis and Synthesis

Where two or more trials with evidence of study homogeneity (trial interventions and population) were identified, meta-analysis using RevMan 5 (version 5.4.1)²⁶ with random effects was conducted. Descriptive statistics summarized study population, interventions, and results. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) plus 95% CI. For continuous outcomes, we planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) plus 95% CI and the standardized mean difference (SMD) (difference between experimental and control groups across trials) reported as the summary statistic.

Subgroup analyses, where possible, included: difficult intravenous access (DIVA), defined by study authors; age (0-3 years; >3 years up to 18 years); hospital setting during PIVC insertion (awake clinical environment vs awake emergency department vs asleep operating room setting); and by operator (bedside nurse, anesthesiologist).

Search Strategy

Figure 1 describes study selection in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.²² We identified 1877 records, and 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. An additional 3 studies were identified in the updated search, totaling 21 studies included in the final review.

Study Characteristics

Collectively, 3237 patients and 3098 successful PIVC insertions were reported. In the included studies, 139 patients did not receive a PIVC owing to failed insertion. Ten studies examined techniques (needle-tip positioning,²⁷ vein choice for PIVC insertion,²⁸ flushing regimen,^29-31 nonpharmacological^32,33 dressing and securement,^34,35 and pharmacological comfort measures³⁶), and 11 studies examined technologies (vessel visualization including ultrasound,^4,37-40 near-infrared [image of vein projected onto the skin],^37,41-44 transillumination [transmission of light through the skin],⁴⁵ and catheter design⁴⁶). Table 1 outlines characteristics of included studies. Most trials were single center and conducted in an acute inpatient pediatric-specific setting^{4,27-34,36-41,44-46} or dedicated pediatric unit in a large public hospital^35,43,44; one study was a multicenter trial.³⁶ All trials described evidence of ethical review board approval and participant consent for trial participation.

Study Quality

The certainty of evidence at the outcome level varied from moderate to very low. Table 2 and Table 3 outline the summary of findings for landmark insertion compared with ultrasound-guided and landmark insertion compared with near-infrared PIVC insertion, respectively. The remaining summary-of-findings comparisons that included more than one study or addressed clinically relevant questions can be found in Appendix Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. At the individual study level, most domains were assessed as low risk of bias (Appendix Figure 1).

Effectiveness of Interventions

Technology to Improve PIVC Outcomes

Landmark compared with ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion. Five studies compared PIVC insertion success outcomes when traditional landmark technique was used in comparison with ultrasound guidance (Appendix Figure 2). Four studies (592 patients)^4,37,38,40 assessed the primary outcome of first-time insertion success. Appendix Figure 2.1 demonstrates PIVCs were 1.5 times more likely to be inserted on first attempt when ultrasound guidance was used compared with landmark insertion (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.02-2.50). When examining only studies that included DIVA,^4,38,40 the effect size increased and CIs tightened (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.24). No evidence of effect was demonstrated when comparing this outcome in children aged 0 to 3 years (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.88-2.18) or >3 years (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.35-1.51. Two studies^4,38 demonstrated that first-time insertion success with ultrasound (compared with landmark) was almost twice as likely (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.44-2.42) after induction of anesthesia in contrast to no effect in studies undertaken in the emergency department^37,40 (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.68-2.56). One study³⁹ (339 patients) reported the secondary outcomes of extravasation/infiltration and phlebitis. Extravasation/infiltration was nearly twice as likely with ultrasound compared with landmark insertion (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.01-3.22); however, there was no evidence of effect related to phlebitis (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.07-1.50).

Four studies^4,38-40 compared the review’s secondary outcome of PIVC insertion success (Appendix Figure 2.2), with no evidence of an effect (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28). No improvement in overall insertion success was demonstrated in the following subgroup analyses: patients with DIVA (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47), children under 3 years of age (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90-1.68), and PIVCs inserted by anesthesiologists (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.91-1.72). One study measured this outcome in children aged >3 years (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99-1.29) with no effect and in the emergency department (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.20), where ultrasound guidance improved overall PIVC insertion success.

Landmark compared with near-infrared PIVC insertion. First-time insertion success (Appendix Figure 3.1) was reported in five studies^37,41-44 and 778 patients with no evidence of effect (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59). Subgroup analysis by DIVA^41-44 demonstrated first-time insertion success more than doubled with near-infrared technology compared with landmark (RR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.02-7.24). Subgroup analysis by age did not demonstrate an effect in children younger than 3 years or children older than 3 years. Subgroup analysis by clinician inserting did not demonstrate an effect. Of the five studies reporting time to insertion,^37,41-44 two^41,42 reported median rather than mean, so could not be included in the analysis. Of the remaining three studies,^37,43,44 near-infrared reduced PIVC time to insertion (Appendix Figure 3.2).

Four studies^37,42-44 reported the number of attempts required for successful PIVC insertion where no difference was detected; however, subgroup analysis of patients with DIVA^43,44 and insertion by bedside nurse^43,44 demonstrated fewer PIVC insertion attempts and a reduction in insertion time, respectively, with the use of near-infrared technology (Appendix Figure 3.3).

Landmark compared with transillumination PIVC insertion. One study⁴⁵ (112 participants) found a positive effect with the use of transillumination and first-time insertion success (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.54), reduced time to insertion (MD, –9.70; 95% CI, –17.40 to –2.00), and fewer insertion attempts (MD, –0.24; 95% CI, –0.40 to –0.08) compared with landmark insertion.

Long PIVC compared with short PIVC. A single study⁴⁶ demonstrated a 70% reduction in PIVC failure (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) when long PIVCs were compared with standard PIVCs. Specifically, PIVC failure due to infiltration was reduced with the use of a long PIVC (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.61). There was no difference in insertion success (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05) or phlebitis (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.07-15.38).

Technique to Improve PIVC Outcomes

Static ultrasound-guided compared with dynamic needle-tip PIVC insertion. In a single study comparing variation in ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion technique²⁷ (60 patients), dynamic needle-tip positioning improved first-time insertion success (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00) and overall PIVC insertion success (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.91).

Variation in vein choice for successful PIVC insertion. Insertion of PIVC in the cephalic vein of the forearm improved insertion success in a single study²⁸ of 172 patients compared with insertion in the dorsal vein of the hand (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.15-1.69) and great saphenous vein (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.49).

Variation in PIVC flush. Heparinized saline compared with 0.9% sodium chloride flush²⁹ did not reduce infiltration (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.03-2.84), occlusion (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.18-19.63) during dwell, or hematoma (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.06-14.33) at insertion.

Two studies^30,31 (253 participants) compared PIVC flush frequency (daily compared with more frequent flush regimes). There was no reduction in overall PIVC failure, extravasation/infiltration, phlebitis, or occlusion during dwell (Appendix Figure 4.1-4.4). Additionally, no effect was demonstrated when a single study³¹ investigated volume of flush on extravasation/infiltration, dislodgement, phlebitis, or occlusion.

Variation in dressing and securement. One trial (330 participants)³⁴ demonstrated that integrated securement and dressing (ISD) product reduced PIVC failure (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93) and occlusion (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.94) compared with bordered polyurethane (BPU). There was no difference in the proportion of PIVC failure between BPU compared with tissue adhesive (TA) (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52-1.06). When comparing individual elements of PIVC failure, there was no evidence of effect between BPU and ISD in reducing infiltration (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.43-1.27), dislodgement (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.58), or phlebitis/pain (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-1.39); similarly, the use of TA compared with BPU did not reduce failure due to infiltration (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.33), dislodgement (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.10-1.35), occlusion (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.45-1.84), or phlebitis/pain (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.05).

A comparison of protective covering³⁵ (60 participants) did not demonstrate a significant improvement in PIVC dwell (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.25-1.41).

Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. A comparison of nonpharmacological comfort techniques, including music during insertion (one trial, 42 participants), did not improve first-time insertion success between the two groups (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03). Similarly, incorporation of a clown³² (47 patients) as method of distraction did not demonstrate an effect on PIVC insertion success (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.06) or time to PIVC insertion (MD, –0.20; 95% CI, –1.74 to 1.34). In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled RCT³⁶ of pharmacological techniques to reduce PIVC insertion-related pain (504 participants), no evidence of effect was established between the placebo control group and the active analgesia in overall PIVC insertion success (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04).

Despite their pervasiveness, PIVC insertion in children is problematic and premature device failure is common, yet effective strategies to overcome these challenges have not been systematically reviewed to date. This systematic review (including meta-analysis) examines techniques and technologies to improve PIVC insertion success and reduce overall failure. We demonstrated ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion significantly improved first-time insertion success in general pediatrics.

Analogous to a previous systematic review in adult patients (1660 patients, odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.37-4.52; P = .003; I², 69%),⁴⁷ we confirm ultrasound improves first-time PIVC insertion success, most notably in pediatric patients with difficult intravenous access. However, widespread use of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion is limited by operator skills, as it requires practice and dexterity, especially for DIVA patients.^5,47 Healthcare facilities should prioritize teaching and training to support acquisition of this skill to reduce the deleterious effects of multiple insertion attempts, including vessel damage, delayed treatment, pain, and anxiety associated with needles.

Other vessel-visualization technologies (near-infrared and transillumination) did not improve PIVC insertion in generic pediatrics.⁵ However, they significantly improved first-time insertion, time to insertion, and number of insertion attempts in patients with DIVA and should be considered in the absence of ultrasound-proficient clinicians.

Although vessel-visualization technologies provide efficient PIVC insertion, complication-free PIVC dwell is equally important. Few studies examined both insertion outcomes and PIVC postinsertion outcomes (dwell time and complications during treatment). One study reported more postinsertion complications ( eg, infiltration) with ultrasound compared with landmark technique.³⁹ Vessel-visualization tools should be used to assess the vein to guide PIVC choice. Pandurangadu et al¹⁵ reported increased PIVC failure when less than 65% of the catheter length resides within the vein; this was consistent with the single RCT⁴⁶ included in this review that demonstrated reduced infiltration with long PIVCs compared with standard-length PIVCs. To reduce this knowledge practice gap, it is critical that clinicians continue to evaluate and publish findings of novel techniques to improve PIVC outcomes.

The review findings have important implications for future research, clinical practice, and policy. Unlike earlier reviews,⁴⁸ vessel-visualization technologies, particularly ultrasound, improved PIVC insertion success; however, during-dwell outcomes were inconsistently reported, and future research should include these. In addition, while there is evidence to support these new technologies, adequate training and resources to ensure a sustained, skilled workforce to optimize PIVC insertion are necessary for successful implementation.

Our study had some limitations, including the methodological quality of included studies (small sample size and significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity). Subgroup analyses were undertaken to reduce the heterogeneity inherent in pediatric populations; however, future studies should stratify for patient (age, DIVA, indication for insertion) and setting (conscious/unconscious, emergent/nonemergent) factors. Incomplete or absent outcome definitions and varied reporting measures (eg, median vs mean) prevented calculation of the pooled incidence of catheter failure and dwell time.

Our review also has notable strengths. Two independent investigators performed a rigorous literature search. Only RCTs were included, ensuring the most robust methods to inform clinically important questions. The primary and secondary outcomes were derived from patient-centered outcomes.

This systematic review and meta-analysis describes the pooled incidence of PIVC insertion success and outcomes, including complication and failure in pediatric patients. PIVC insertion with ultrasound should be used to improve insertion success in generic pediatric patients, and any form of vessel-visualization technology (ultrasound, near-infrared, transillumination) should be considered for anticipated difficult insertions.

As one of the youngest fields of pediatric practice in the United States, pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has grown rapidly over the past 2 decades. Approximately 10% of recent graduates from pediatric residency programs in the United States have entered PHM, with two-thirds reporting an intention to remain as hospitalists long term.^1,2

In October 2016, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved a petition for PHM to become the newest pediatric subspecialty.³ The application for subspeciality status, led by the Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, articulated that subspecialty certification would more clearly define subspecialty hospitalists’ scope of practice, create a “new and larger cadre” of quality improvement (QI) experts, and strengthen opportunities for professional development related to child health safety within healthcare systems.⁴ Approximately 1500 pediatric hospitalists sat for the first PHM board-certification exam in November 2019, illustrating broad interest and commitment to this subspecialty.⁵

Characterizing the current responsibilities, practice settings, and professional interests of pediatric hospitalists is critical to understanding the continued development of the field. However, the most recent national survey of pediatric hospitalists’ roles and responsibilities was conducted more than a decade ago, and shared definitions of what constitutes PHM across institutions are lacking.⁶ Furthermore, studies suggest wide variability in PHM workload.^7-9 We therefore aimed to describe the characteristics, responsibilities, and practice settings of pediatricians who reported practicing PHM in the United States and determine how exclusive PHM practice, compared with PHM practice in combination with primary or subspecialty care, was associated with professional responsibilities and interests. We hypothesized that those reporting exclusive PHM practice would be more likely to report interest in QI leadership and intention to take the PHM certifying exam than those practicing PHM in combination with primary or subspecialty care.

Participants and Survey

Pediatricians enrolling in the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2017 and 2018 were asked to complete a voluntary survey about their professional roles and scope of practice (Appendix Methods). The survey, offered to all MOC enrollees, included a hospital medicine module administered to those reporting PHM practice, given the ABP’s interest in characterizing PHM roles, responsibilities, practice settings, and interests in QI. Respondents were excluded if they were practicing outside of the United States, if they were unemployed or in a volunteer position, or if they were in fellowship training.

To ascertain areas of clinical practice, respondents were provided with a list of clinical practice areas and asked, “In which of the following areas are you practicing?” Those selecting “hospital medicine” were classified as self-identified hospitalists (hereafter, “hospitalists”). Given variation across institutions in physician roles and responsibilities, we stratified hospitalists into three groups: (1) exclusive PHM practice, representing those who reported PHM as their only area of practice; (2) PHM in combination with general pediatrics, representing those who reported practicing PHM and general pediatrics; and (3) PHM in combination with other subspecialties, representing those who reported practicing PHM in addition to one or more subspecialties. Respondents who reported practicing hospital medicine, general pediatrics, and another subspecialty were classified in the subspecialty group. The ABP’s institutional review board of record deemed the survey exempt from human subjects review.

Hospitalist Characteristics and Clinical Roles

To characterize respondents, we examined their age, gender, medical school location (American medical school or international medical school), and survey year (2017 or 2018). We also examined the following practice characteristics: US Census region, part-time versus full-time employment, academic appointment (yes or no), proportion of time spent providing direct and/or consultative patient care and fulfilling nonclinical responsibilities (research, administration, medical education, and QI), hospital setting (children’s hospital, community hospital, or mix of these hospital types), and work schedule type (shift schedule, on-service work in blocks, or a combination of shift and block schedules).

To examine variation in clinical roles, we determined the proportion of total direct and/or consultative clinical care that was spent in each of the following areas: (1) inpatient pediatric care, defined as inpatient general or subspecialty care in patients up to 21 years of age; (2) neonatal care, defined as labor and delivery, inpatient normal newborn care, and/or neonatal intensive care; (3) outpatient practice, defined as outpatient general or subspecialty care in patients up to 21 years of age; (4) emergency department care; and (5) other, which included pediatric intensive care as well inpatient adult care. Recognizing that scope of practice may differ at community hospitals and children’s hospitals, we stratified this analysis by practice setting (children’s hospital, community hospital).

Dependent Variables

We examined four dependent variables, two that were hypothesis driven and two that were exploratory. To test our hypothesis that respondents practicing PHM exclusively would be more likely to report interest in QI leadership or consultation (given the emphasis on QI in the ABMS application for subspecialty status), we examined the frequency with which respondents endorsed being “somewhat interested” or “very interested” in “serving as a leader or consultant for QI activities.” To test our hypothesis that respondents practicing PHM exclusively would be more likely to report plans to take the PHM certifying exam, we noted the frequency with which respondents reported “yes” to the question, “Do you plan to take a certifying exam in hospitalist medicine when it becomes available?” As an exploratory outcome, we examined satisfaction with allocation of professional time, available on the 2017 survey only; satisfaction was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Is the allocation of your total professional time approximately what you wanted in your current position?” Finally, intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, also reported only in 2017 and examined as an exploratory outcome, was defined as a reported intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, including general pediatrics, PHM, or any other subspecialty.

Statistical Analysis

We used chi-square tests and analysis of variance as appropriate to examine differences in sociodemographic and professional characteristics among respondents who reported exclusive PHM practice, PHM in combination with general pediatrics, and PHM in combination with another subspecialty. To examine differences across the three PHM groups in their allocation of time to various clinical responsibilities (eg, inpatient care, newborn care), we used Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-population rank tests, stratifying by hospital type. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify associations between exclusive PHM practice and our four dependent variables, adjusting for the sociodemographic and professional characteristics described above. All analyses were conducted using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC), using two-sided tests, and defining P < .05 as statistically significant.

Study Sample

Of the 19,763 pediatricians enrolling in MOC in 2017 and 2018, 13,839 responded the survey, representing a response rate of 70.0%. There were no significant differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents with respect to gender; differences between respondents and nonrespondents in age, medical school location, and initial year of ABP certification year were small (mean age, 48.1 years and 47.1 years, respectively [P < .01]; 77.0% of respondents were graduates of US medical schools compared with 73.7% of nonrespondents [P < .01]; mean certification year for respondents was 2003 compared with 2004 for nonrespondents [P < .01]). After applying the described exclusion criteria, 1662 of 12,665 respondents self-identified as hospitalists, reflecting 13.1% of the sample and the focus of this analysis (Appendix Figure).

Participant Characteristics and Areas of Practice

Of 1662 self-identified hospitalists, 881 (53.0%) also reported practicing general pediatrics, and 653 (39.3%) also reported practicing at least one subspecialty in addition to PHM. The most frequently reported additional subspecialty practice areas included: (1) neonatology (n = 155, 9.3%); (2) adolescent medicine (n = 138, 8.3%); (3) pediatric critical care (n = 89, 5.4%); (4) pediatric emergency medicine (n = 80, 4.8%); and (5) medicine-pediatrics (n = 30, 4.7%, asked only on the 2018 survey). When stratified into mutually exclusive groups, 491 respondents (29.5%) identified as practicing PHM exclusively, 518 (31.2%) identified as practicing PHM in combination with general pediatrics, and 653 (39.3%) identified as practicing PHM in combination with one or more other subspecialties.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of respondents in these three groups. Respondents reporting exclusive PHM practice were, on average, younger, more likely to be female, and more likely to be graduates of US medical schools than those reporting PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. In total, approximately two-thirds of the sample (n = 1068, 64.3%) reported holding an academic appointment, including 72.9% (n = 358) of those reporting exclusive PHM practice compared with 56.9% (n = 295) of those also reporting general pediatrics and 63.6% (n = 415) of those also reporting subspecialty care (P < .001). Respondents who reported practicing PHM exclusively most frequently worked at children’s hospitals (64.6%, n = 317), compared with 40.0% (n = 207) and 42.1% (n = 275) of those practicing PHM in combination with general and subspecialty pediatrics, respectively (P < .001).

Clinical and Nonclinical Roles and Responsibilities

The majority of respondents reported that they spent >75% of their professional time in direct clinical or consultative care, including 62.1% (n = 305) of those reporting PHM exclusively and 77.8% (n = 403) and 66.6% (n = 435) of those reporting PHM with general and subspecialty pediatrics, respectively (P < .001). Overall, <10% reported spending less than 50% of their time proving direct patient care, including 11.2% (n = 55) of those reporting exclusive PHM practice, 11.2% (n = 73) reporting PHM in combination with a subspecialty, and 6% (n = 31) in combination with general pediatrics. The mean proportion of time spent in nonclinical roles was 22.4% (SD, 20.4%), and the mean proportions of time spent in any one area (administration, research, education, or QI) were all <10%.

The proportion of time allocated to inpatient pediatric care, neonatal care, emergency care, and outpatient pediatric care varied substantially across PHM practice groups and settings. Among respondents who practiced at children’s hospitals, the median percentage of clinical time dedicated to inpatient pediatric care was 66.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 15%-100%), with neonatal care being the second most common clinical practice area (Figure, part A; Appendix Table). At community hospitals, the percentage of clinical time dedicated to inpatient pediatric care was lower, with a median of 10% (IQR, 3%-40%) (Figure, part B). Among those reporting exclusive PHM practice, the median proportion of clinical time spent delivering inpatient pediatric care was 100% (IQR, 80%-100%) at children’s hospitals and 40% (IQR, 20%-85%) at community hospitals. At community hospitals, neonatal care accounted for a similar proportion of clinical time as inpatient pediatric care for these respondents (median, 40% [IQR, 0%-70%]). With the exception of emergency room care, we observed significant differences in how clinical time was allocated by respondents reporting exclusive PHM practice compared with those reporting PHM in combination with general or specialty care (all P values < .001, Appendix Table).

Professional Development Interests

Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported interest in QI leadership or consultation (Table 2), with those reporting exclusive PHM practice significantly more likely to report this (70.3% [n = 345] compared with 57.7% [n = 297] of those practicing PHM with general pediatrics and 66.3% [n = 431] of those practicing PHM with another subspecialty, P < .001). Similarly, 69% (n = 339) of respondents who reported exclusive PHM practice described an intention to take the PHM certifying examination, compared with 20.4% (n = 105) of those practicing PHM and general pediatrics and 17.7% (n = 115) of those practicing PHM and subspeciality pediatrics (P < .001). A total of 82.5% (n = 846) of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the allocation of their professional time; there were no significant differences between those reporting exclusive PHM practice and those reporting PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. Of hospitalists reporting exclusive PHM practice, 67.8% (n = 166) reported an intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, compared with 22.1% (n = 78) of those practicing PHM and general pediatrics and 53.9% (n = 230) of those practicing PHM and subspecialty pediatrics (P < .001).

In multivariate regression analyses, hospitalists reporting exclusive PHM practice had significantly greater odds of reported interest in QI leadership or consultation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.79), intention to take the PHM certifying exam (adjusted OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 5.45-9.25), and intention to maintain more than one ABP certification (adjusted OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.89-3.68) than those practicing PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics (Table 3). There was no significant difference across the three groups in the satisfaction with the allocation of professional time.

In this national survey of pediatricians seeking MOC from the ABP, 13.1% reported that they practiced hospital medicine, with approximately one-third of these individuals reporting that they practiced PHM exclusively. The distribution of clinical and nonclinical responsibilities differed across those reporting exclusive PHM practice relative to those practicing PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. Relative to hospitalists who reported practicing PHM in addition to general or subspecialty care, those reporting exclusive PHM practice were significantly more likely to report an interest in QI leadership or consultation, intention to sit for the PHM board-certification exam, and intention to maintain more than one ABP certification.

These findings offer insight into the evolution of PHM and have important implications for workforce planning. The last nationally representative analysis of the PHM workforce was conducted in 2006, at which time 73% of hospitalists reported working at children’s hospitals.⁶ In the current analysis, less than 50% of hospitalists reported practicing PHM at children’s hospitals only; 10% reported working at both children’s hospitals and community hospitals and 40% at community hospitals alone. This diffusion of PHM from children’s hospitals into community hospitals represents an important development in the field and aligns with the epidemiology of pediatric hospitalization.¹⁰ Pediatric hospitalists who practice at community hospitals experience unique challenges, including a relative paucity of pediatric-specific clinical resources, limited mentorship opportunities and resources for scholarly work, and limited access to data from which to prioritize QI interventions.^11,12 Our findings also illustrate that the scope of practice for hospitalists differs at community hospitals relative to children’s hospitals. Although the PHM fellowship curriculum requires training at a community hospital, the requirement is limited to one 4-week block, which may not provide sufficient preparation for the unique clinical responsibilities in this setting.^13,14

Relative to past analyses of PHM workforce roles and responsibilities, a substantially greater proportion of respondents in the current study reported clinical responsibility for neonatal care, including more than 40% of those self-reporting practicing PHM exclusively and almost three-quarters of those self-reporting PHM in conjunction with general pediatrics.^6,15 Given that more than half of the six million US pediatric hospitalizations that occur each year represent birth hospitalizations,¹⁶ pediatric hospitalists’ responsibilities for newborn care are consistent with these patterns of hospital-based care. Expanding hospitalists’ responsibilities to provide newborn care has also been shown to improve the financial performance of PHM programs with relatively low pediatric volumes, which may further explain this finding, particularly at community hospitals.^17,18 Interestingly, although emergency department care has also been demonstrated as a model to improve the financial stability of PHM programs, relatively few hospitalists reported this as an area of clinical responsibility.^19,20 This finding contrasts with past analyses and may reflect how the scope of PHM clinical responsibilities has changed since these prior studies were conducted.^6,15

Because PHM had not been recognized as a subspecialty prior to 2016, a national count of pediatric hospitalists is lacking. In this study, approximately one in eight pediatricians reported that they practiced PHM, but less than 4% of the survey sample reported practicing PHM exclusively. Based on these results, we estimate that of the 76,214 to 89,608 ABP-certified pediatricians currently practicing in the United States, between 9984 and 11,738 would self-identify as practicing PHM, with between 2945 and 3462 reporting exclusive PHM practice.

Hospitalists who reported practicing PHM exclusively were significantly more likely to report an interest in QI leadership or consultation and plans to take the PHM certifying exam. These findings are consistent with PHM’s focus on QI, as articulated in the application to the ABMS for subspecialty status as well as the PHM Core Competencies and fellowship curriculum.^4,13,21,22 Despite past research questioning the sustainability of some community- and university-based PHM programs and wide variability in workload,^7-9 more than 80% of hospitalists reported satisfaction with the allocation of their professional time, with no significant differences between respondents practicing PHM exclusively or in combination with general or subspecialty care.

This analysis should be interpreted in light of its strengths and limitations. Strengths of this work include its national focus, large sample size, and comprehensive characterization of respondents’ professional roles and characteristics. Study limitations include the fact that respondents were classified as hospitalists based on self-report; we were unable to ascertain if they were classified as hospitalists at their place of employment or if they met the ABP’s eligibility criteria to sit for the PHM subspecialty certifying exam.¹⁹ Additionally, respondents self-reported their allocations of clinical and nonclinical time, and we are unable to correlate this with actual work hours. Respondents’ reported interest in QI leadership or consultation may not be correlated with QI effort in practice; the mean time reportedly dedicated to QI activities was quite low. Additionally, two of our outcomes were available only for respondents who enrolled in MOC in 2017, and the proportion practicing medicine-pediatrics was available only in 2018. Although this analysis represents approximately 40% of all pediatricians enrolling in MOC (2 years of the 5-year MOC cycle), it may not be representative of pediatricians who are not certified by the ABP. Finally, our outcomes related to board certification examined interest and intentions; future study will be needed to determine how many pediatricians take the PHM exam and maintain certification.

In conclusion, the field of PHM has evolved considerably since its inception, with pediatric hospitalists reporting diverse clinical and nonclinical responsibilities. Hospitalists practicing PHM exclusively were more likely to report an interest in QI leadership and intent to sit for the PHM certifying exam than those practicing PHM in combination with general pediatrics or another specialty. Continuing to monitor the evolution of PHM roles and responsibilities over time and across settings will be important to support the professional development needs of the PHM workforce.

As one of the youngest fields of pediatric practice in the United States, pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has grown rapidly over the past 2 decades. Approximately 10% of recent graduates from pediatric residency programs in the United States have entered PHM, with two-thirds reporting an intention to remain as hospitalists long term.^1,2

In October 2016, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved a petition for PHM to become the newest pediatric subspecialty.³ The application for subspeciality status, led by the Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, articulated that subspecialty certification would more clearly define subspecialty hospitalists’ scope of practice, create a “new and larger cadre” of quality improvement (QI) experts, and strengthen opportunities for professional development related to child health safety within healthcare systems.⁴ Approximately 1500 pediatric hospitalists sat for the first PHM board-certification exam in November 2019, illustrating broad interest and commitment to this subspecialty.⁵

Characterizing the current responsibilities, practice settings, and professional interests of pediatric hospitalists is critical to understanding the continued development of the field. However, the most recent national survey of pediatric hospitalists’ roles and responsibilities was conducted more than a decade ago, and shared definitions of what constitutes PHM across institutions are lacking.⁶ Furthermore, studies suggest wide variability in PHM workload.^7-9 We therefore aimed to describe the characteristics, responsibilities, and practice settings of pediatricians who reported practicing PHM in the United States and determine how exclusive PHM practice, compared with PHM practice in combination with primary or subspecialty care, was associated with professional responsibilities and interests. We hypothesized that those reporting exclusive PHM practice would be more likely to report interest in QI leadership and intention to take the PHM certifying exam than those practicing PHM in combination with primary or subspecialty care.

Participants and Survey

Pediatricians enrolling in the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2017 and 2018 were asked to complete a voluntary survey about their professional roles and scope of practice (Appendix Methods). The survey, offered to all MOC enrollees, included a hospital medicine module administered to those reporting PHM practice, given the ABP’s interest in characterizing PHM roles, responsibilities, practice settings, and interests in QI. Respondents were excluded if they were practicing outside of the United States, if they were unemployed or in a volunteer position, or if they were in fellowship training.

To ascertain areas of clinical practice, respondents were provided with a list of clinical practice areas and asked, “In which of the following areas are you practicing?” Those selecting “hospital medicine” were classified as self-identified hospitalists (hereafter, “hospitalists”). Given variation across institutions in physician roles and responsibilities, we stratified hospitalists into three groups: (1) exclusive PHM practice, representing those who reported PHM as their only area of practice; (2) PHM in combination with general pediatrics, representing those who reported practicing PHM and general pediatrics; and (3) PHM in combination with other subspecialties, representing those who reported practicing PHM in addition to one or more subspecialties. Respondents who reported practicing hospital medicine, general pediatrics, and another subspecialty were classified in the subspecialty group. The ABP’s institutional review board of record deemed the survey exempt from human subjects review.

Hospitalist Characteristics and Clinical Roles

To characterize respondents, we examined their age, gender, medical school location (American medical school or international medical school), and survey year (2017 or 2018). We also examined the following practice characteristics: US Census region, part-time versus full-time employment, academic appointment (yes or no), proportion of time spent providing direct and/or consultative patient care and fulfilling nonclinical responsibilities (research, administration, medical education, and QI), hospital setting (children’s hospital, community hospital, or mix of these hospital types), and work schedule type (shift schedule, on-service work in blocks, or a combination of shift and block schedules).

To examine variation in clinical roles, we determined the proportion of total direct and/or consultative clinical care that was spent in each of the following areas: (1) inpatient pediatric care, defined as inpatient general or subspecialty care in patients up to 21 years of age; (2) neonatal care, defined as labor and delivery, inpatient normal newborn care, and/or neonatal intensive care; (3) outpatient practice, defined as outpatient general or subspecialty care in patients up to 21 years of age; (4) emergency department care; and (5) other, which included pediatric intensive care as well inpatient adult care. Recognizing that scope of practice may differ at community hospitals and children’s hospitals, we stratified this analysis by practice setting (children’s hospital, community hospital).

Dependent Variables

We examined four dependent variables, two that were hypothesis driven and two that were exploratory. To test our hypothesis that respondents practicing PHM exclusively would be more likely to report interest in QI leadership or consultation (given the emphasis on QI in the ABMS application for subspecialty status), we examined the frequency with which respondents endorsed being “somewhat interested” or “very interested” in “serving as a leader or consultant for QI activities.” To test our hypothesis that respondents practicing PHM exclusively would be more likely to report plans to take the PHM certifying exam, we noted the frequency with which respondents reported “yes” to the question, “Do you plan to take a certifying exam in hospitalist medicine when it becomes available?” As an exploratory outcome, we examined satisfaction with allocation of professional time, available on the 2017 survey only; satisfaction was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Is the allocation of your total professional time approximately what you wanted in your current position?” Finally, intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, also reported only in 2017 and examined as an exploratory outcome, was defined as a reported intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, including general pediatrics, PHM, or any other subspecialty.

Statistical Analysis

We used chi-square tests and analysis of variance as appropriate to examine differences in sociodemographic and professional characteristics among respondents who reported exclusive PHM practice, PHM in combination with general pediatrics, and PHM in combination with another subspecialty. To examine differences across the three PHM groups in their allocation of time to various clinical responsibilities (eg, inpatient care, newborn care), we used Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-population rank tests, stratifying by hospital type. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify associations between exclusive PHM practice and our four dependent variables, adjusting for the sociodemographic and professional characteristics described above. All analyses were conducted using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC), using two-sided tests, and defining P < .05 as statistically significant.

Study Sample

Of the 19,763 pediatricians enrolling in MOC in 2017 and 2018, 13,839 responded the survey, representing a response rate of 70.0%. There were no significant differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents with respect to gender; differences between respondents and nonrespondents in age, medical school location, and initial year of ABP certification year were small (mean age, 48.1 years and 47.1 years, respectively [P < .01]; 77.0% of respondents were graduates of US medical schools compared with 73.7% of nonrespondents [P < .01]; mean certification year for respondents was 2003 compared with 2004 for nonrespondents [P < .01]). After applying the described exclusion criteria, 1662 of 12,665 respondents self-identified as hospitalists, reflecting 13.1% of the sample and the focus of this analysis (Appendix Figure).

Participant Characteristics and Areas of Practice

Of 1662 self-identified hospitalists, 881 (53.0%) also reported practicing general pediatrics, and 653 (39.3%) also reported practicing at least one subspecialty in addition to PHM. The most frequently reported additional subspecialty practice areas included: (1) neonatology (n = 155, 9.3%); (2) adolescent medicine (n = 138, 8.3%); (3) pediatric critical care (n = 89, 5.4%); (4) pediatric emergency medicine (n = 80, 4.8%); and (5) medicine-pediatrics (n = 30, 4.7%, asked only on the 2018 survey). When stratified into mutually exclusive groups, 491 respondents (29.5%) identified as practicing PHM exclusively, 518 (31.2%) identified as practicing PHM in combination with general pediatrics, and 653 (39.3%) identified as practicing PHM in combination with one or more other subspecialties.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of respondents in these three groups. Respondents reporting exclusive PHM practice were, on average, younger, more likely to be female, and more likely to be graduates of US medical schools than those reporting PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. In total, approximately two-thirds of the sample (n = 1068, 64.3%) reported holding an academic appointment, including 72.9% (n = 358) of those reporting exclusive PHM practice compared with 56.9% (n = 295) of those also reporting general pediatrics and 63.6% (n = 415) of those also reporting subspecialty care (P < .001). Respondents who reported practicing PHM exclusively most frequently worked at children’s hospitals (64.6%, n = 317), compared with 40.0% (n = 207) and 42.1% (n = 275) of those practicing PHM in combination with general and subspecialty pediatrics, respectively (P < .001).

Clinical and Nonclinical Roles and Responsibilities

The majority of respondents reported that they spent >75% of their professional time in direct clinical or consultative care, including 62.1% (n = 305) of those reporting PHM exclusively and 77.8% (n = 403) and 66.6% (n = 435) of those reporting PHM with general and subspecialty pediatrics, respectively (P < .001). Overall, <10% reported spending less than 50% of their time proving direct patient care, including 11.2% (n = 55) of those reporting exclusive PHM practice, 11.2% (n = 73) reporting PHM in combination with a subspecialty, and 6% (n = 31) in combination with general pediatrics. The mean proportion of time spent in nonclinical roles was 22.4% (SD, 20.4%), and the mean proportions of time spent in any one area (administration, research, education, or QI) were all <10%.

The proportion of time allocated to inpatient pediatric care, neonatal care, emergency care, and outpatient pediatric care varied substantially across PHM practice groups and settings. Among respondents who practiced at children’s hospitals, the median percentage of clinical time dedicated to inpatient pediatric care was 66.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 15%-100%), with neonatal care being the second most common clinical practice area (Figure, part A; Appendix Table). At community hospitals, the percentage of clinical time dedicated to inpatient pediatric care was lower, with a median of 10% (IQR, 3%-40%) (Figure, part B). Among those reporting exclusive PHM practice, the median proportion of clinical time spent delivering inpatient pediatric care was 100% (IQR, 80%-100%) at children’s hospitals and 40% (IQR, 20%-85%) at community hospitals. At community hospitals, neonatal care accounted for a similar proportion of clinical time as inpatient pediatric care for these respondents (median, 40% [IQR, 0%-70%]). With the exception of emergency room care, we observed significant differences in how clinical time was allocated by respondents reporting exclusive PHM practice compared with those reporting PHM in combination with general or specialty care (all P values < .001, Appendix Table).

Professional Development Interests

Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported interest in QI leadership or consultation (Table 2), with those reporting exclusive PHM practice significantly more likely to report this (70.3% [n = 345] compared with 57.7% [n = 297] of those practicing PHM with general pediatrics and 66.3% [n = 431] of those practicing PHM with another subspecialty, P < .001). Similarly, 69% (n = 339) of respondents who reported exclusive PHM practice described an intention to take the PHM certifying examination, compared with 20.4% (n = 105) of those practicing PHM and general pediatrics and 17.7% (n = 115) of those practicing PHM and subspeciality pediatrics (P < .001). A total of 82.5% (n = 846) of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the allocation of their professional time; there were no significant differences between those reporting exclusive PHM practice and those reporting PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. Of hospitalists reporting exclusive PHM practice, 67.8% (n = 166) reported an intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, compared with 22.1% (n = 78) of those practicing PHM and general pediatrics and 53.9% (n = 230) of those practicing PHM and subspecialty pediatrics (P < .001).

In multivariate regression analyses, hospitalists reporting exclusive PHM practice had significantly greater odds of reported interest in QI leadership or consultation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.79), intention to take the PHM certifying exam (adjusted OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 5.45-9.25), and intention to maintain more than one ABP certification (adjusted OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.89-3.68) than those practicing PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics (Table 3). There was no significant difference across the three groups in the satisfaction with the allocation of professional time.

In this national survey of pediatricians seeking MOC from the ABP, 13.1% reported that they practiced hospital medicine, with approximately one-third of these individuals reporting that they practiced PHM exclusively. The distribution of clinical and nonclinical responsibilities differed across those reporting exclusive PHM practice relative to those practicing PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. Relative to hospitalists who reported practicing PHM in addition to general or subspecialty care, those reporting exclusive PHM practice were significantly more likely to report an interest in QI leadership or consultation, intention to sit for the PHM board-certification exam, and intention to maintain more than one ABP certification.

These findings offer insight into the evolution of PHM and have important implications for workforce planning. The last nationally representative analysis of the PHM workforce was conducted in 2006, at which time 73% of hospitalists reported working at children’s hospitals.⁶ In the current analysis, less than 50% of hospitalists reported practicing PHM at children’s hospitals only; 10% reported working at both children’s hospitals and community hospitals and 40% at community hospitals alone. This diffusion of PHM from children’s hospitals into community hospitals represents an important development in the field and aligns with the epidemiology of pediatric hospitalization.¹⁰ Pediatric hospitalists who practice at community hospitals experience unique challenges, including a relative paucity of pediatric-specific clinical resources, limited mentorship opportunities and resources for scholarly work, and limited access to data from which to prioritize QI interventions.^11,12 Our findings also illustrate that the scope of practice for hospitalists differs at community hospitals relative to children’s hospitals. Although the PHM fellowship curriculum requires training at a community hospital, the requirement is limited to one 4-week block, which may not provide sufficient preparation for the unique clinical responsibilities in this setting.^13,14

Relative to past analyses of PHM workforce roles and responsibilities, a substantially greater proportion of respondents in the current study reported clinical responsibility for neonatal care, including more than 40% of those self-reporting practicing PHM exclusively and almost three-quarters of those self-reporting PHM in conjunction with general pediatrics.^6,15 Given that more than half of the six million US pediatric hospitalizations that occur each year represent birth hospitalizations,¹⁶ pediatric hospitalists’ responsibilities for newborn care are consistent with these patterns of hospital-based care. Expanding hospitalists’ responsibilities to provide newborn care has also been shown to improve the financial performance of PHM programs with relatively low pediatric volumes, which may further explain this finding, particularly at community hospitals.^17,18 Interestingly, although emergency department care has also been demonstrated as a model to improve the financial stability of PHM programs, relatively few hospitalists reported this as an area of clinical responsibility.^19,20 This finding contrasts with past analyses and may reflect how the scope of PHM clinical responsibilities has changed since these prior studies were conducted.^6,15

Because PHM had not been recognized as a subspecialty prior to 2016, a national count of pediatric hospitalists is lacking. In this study, approximately one in eight pediatricians reported that they practiced PHM, but less than 4% of the survey sample reported practicing PHM exclusively. Based on these results, we estimate that of the 76,214 to 89,608 ABP-certified pediatricians currently practicing in the United States, between 9984 and 11,738 would self-identify as practicing PHM, with between 2945 and 3462 reporting exclusive PHM practice.

Hospitalists who reported practicing PHM exclusively were significantly more likely to report an interest in QI leadership or consultation and plans to take the PHM certifying exam. These findings are consistent with PHM’s focus on QI, as articulated in the application to the ABMS for subspecialty status as well as the PHM Core Competencies and fellowship curriculum.^4,13,21,22 Despite past research questioning the sustainability of some community- and university-based PHM programs and wide variability in workload,^7-9 more than 80% of hospitalists reported satisfaction with the allocation of their professional time, with no significant differences between respondents practicing PHM exclusively or in combination with general or subspecialty care.

This analysis should be interpreted in light of its strengths and limitations. Strengths of this work include its national focus, large sample size, and comprehensive characterization of respondents’ professional roles and characteristics. Study limitations include the fact that respondents were classified as hospitalists based on self-report; we were unable to ascertain if they were classified as hospitalists at their place of employment or if they met the ABP’s eligibility criteria to sit for the PHM subspecialty certifying exam.¹⁹ Additionally, respondents self-reported their allocations of clinical and nonclinical time, and we are unable to correlate this with actual work hours. Respondents’ reported interest in QI leadership or consultation may not be correlated with QI effort in practice; the mean time reportedly dedicated to QI activities was quite low. Additionally, two of our outcomes were available only for respondents who enrolled in MOC in 2017, and the proportion practicing medicine-pediatrics was available only in 2018. Although this analysis represents approximately 40% of all pediatricians enrolling in MOC (2 years of the 5-year MOC cycle), it may not be representative of pediatricians who are not certified by the ABP. Finally, our outcomes related to board certification examined interest and intentions; future study will be needed to determine how many pediatricians take the PHM exam and maintain certification.

In conclusion, the field of PHM has evolved considerably since its inception, with pediatric hospitalists reporting diverse clinical and nonclinical responsibilities. Hospitalists practicing PHM exclusively were more likely to report an interest in QI leadership and intent to sit for the PHM certifying exam than those practicing PHM in combination with general pediatrics or another specialty. Continuing to monitor the evolution of PHM roles and responsibilities over time and across settings will be important to support the professional development needs of the PHM workforce.

As one of the youngest fields of pediatric practice in the United States, pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has grown rapidly over the past 2 decades. Approximately 10% of recent graduates from pediatric residency programs in the United States have entered PHM, with two-thirds reporting an intention to remain as hospitalists long term.^1,2

In October 2016, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) approved a petition for PHM to become the newest pediatric subspecialty.³ The application for subspeciality status, led by the Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, articulated that subspecialty certification would more clearly define subspecialty hospitalists’ scope of practice, create a “new and larger cadre” of quality improvement (QI) experts, and strengthen opportunities for professional development related to child health safety within healthcare systems.⁴ Approximately 1500 pediatric hospitalists sat for the first PHM board-certification exam in November 2019, illustrating broad interest and commitment to this subspecialty.⁵

Characterizing the current responsibilities, practice settings, and professional interests of pediatric hospitalists is critical to understanding the continued development of the field. However, the most recent national survey of pediatric hospitalists’ roles and responsibilities was conducted more than a decade ago, and shared definitions of what constitutes PHM across institutions are lacking.⁶ Furthermore, studies suggest wide variability in PHM workload.^7-9 We therefore aimed to describe the characteristics, responsibilities, and practice settings of pediatricians who reported practicing PHM in the United States and determine how exclusive PHM practice, compared with PHM practice in combination with primary or subspecialty care, was associated with professional responsibilities and interests. We hypothesized that those reporting exclusive PHM practice would be more likely to report interest in QI leadership and intention to take the PHM certifying exam than those practicing PHM in combination with primary or subspecialty care.

Participants and Survey

Pediatricians enrolling in the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program in 2017 and 2018 were asked to complete a voluntary survey about their professional roles and scope of practice (Appendix Methods). The survey, offered to all MOC enrollees, included a hospital medicine module administered to those reporting PHM practice, given the ABP’s interest in characterizing PHM roles, responsibilities, practice settings, and interests in QI. Respondents were excluded if they were practicing outside of the United States, if they were unemployed or in a volunteer position, or if they were in fellowship training.

To ascertain areas of clinical practice, respondents were provided with a list of clinical practice areas and asked, “In which of the following areas are you practicing?” Those selecting “hospital medicine” were classified as self-identified hospitalists (hereafter, “hospitalists”). Given variation across institutions in physician roles and responsibilities, we stratified hospitalists into three groups: (1) exclusive PHM practice, representing those who reported PHM as their only area of practice; (2) PHM in combination with general pediatrics, representing those who reported practicing PHM and general pediatrics; and (3) PHM in combination with other subspecialties, representing those who reported practicing PHM in addition to one or more subspecialties. Respondents who reported practicing hospital medicine, general pediatrics, and another subspecialty were classified in the subspecialty group. The ABP’s institutional review board of record deemed the survey exempt from human subjects review.

Hospitalist Characteristics and Clinical Roles

To characterize respondents, we examined their age, gender, medical school location (American medical school or international medical school), and survey year (2017 or 2018). We also examined the following practice characteristics: US Census region, part-time versus full-time employment, academic appointment (yes or no), proportion of time spent providing direct and/or consultative patient care and fulfilling nonclinical responsibilities (research, administration, medical education, and QI), hospital setting (children’s hospital, community hospital, or mix of these hospital types), and work schedule type (shift schedule, on-service work in blocks, or a combination of shift and block schedules).

To examine variation in clinical roles, we determined the proportion of total direct and/or consultative clinical care that was spent in each of the following areas: (1) inpatient pediatric care, defined as inpatient general or subspecialty care in patients up to 21 years of age; (2) neonatal care, defined as labor and delivery, inpatient normal newborn care, and/or neonatal intensive care; (3) outpatient practice, defined as outpatient general or subspecialty care in patients up to 21 years of age; (4) emergency department care; and (5) other, which included pediatric intensive care as well inpatient adult care. Recognizing that scope of practice may differ at community hospitals and children’s hospitals, we stratified this analysis by practice setting (children’s hospital, community hospital).

Dependent Variables

We examined four dependent variables, two that were hypothesis driven and two that were exploratory. To test our hypothesis that respondents practicing PHM exclusively would be more likely to report interest in QI leadership or consultation (given the emphasis on QI in the ABMS application for subspecialty status), we examined the frequency with which respondents endorsed being “somewhat interested” or “very interested” in “serving as a leader or consultant for QI activities.” To test our hypothesis that respondents practicing PHM exclusively would be more likely to report plans to take the PHM certifying exam, we noted the frequency with which respondents reported “yes” to the question, “Do you plan to take a certifying exam in hospitalist medicine when it becomes available?” As an exploratory outcome, we examined satisfaction with allocation of professional time, available on the 2017 survey only; satisfaction was defined as an affirmative response to the question, “Is the allocation of your total professional time approximately what you wanted in your current position?” Finally, intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, also reported only in 2017 and examined as an exploratory outcome, was defined as a reported intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, including general pediatrics, PHM, or any other subspecialty.

Statistical Analysis

We used chi-square tests and analysis of variance as appropriate to examine differences in sociodemographic and professional characteristics among respondents who reported exclusive PHM practice, PHM in combination with general pediatrics, and PHM in combination with another subspecialty. To examine differences across the three PHM groups in their allocation of time to various clinical responsibilities (eg, inpatient care, newborn care), we used Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-population rank tests, stratifying by hospital type. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify associations between exclusive PHM practice and our four dependent variables, adjusting for the sociodemographic and professional characteristics described above. All analyses were conducted using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC), using two-sided tests, and defining P < .05 as statistically significant.

Study Sample

Of the 19,763 pediatricians enrolling in MOC in 2017 and 2018, 13,839 responded the survey, representing a response rate of 70.0%. There were no significant differences between survey respondents and nonrespondents with respect to gender; differences between respondents and nonrespondents in age, medical school location, and initial year of ABP certification year were small (mean age, 48.1 years and 47.1 years, respectively [P < .01]; 77.0% of respondents were graduates of US medical schools compared with 73.7% of nonrespondents [P < .01]; mean certification year for respondents was 2003 compared with 2004 for nonrespondents [P < .01]). After applying the described exclusion criteria, 1662 of 12,665 respondents self-identified as hospitalists, reflecting 13.1% of the sample and the focus of this analysis (Appendix Figure).

Participant Characteristics and Areas of Practice

Of 1662 self-identified hospitalists, 881 (53.0%) also reported practicing general pediatrics, and 653 (39.3%) also reported practicing at least one subspecialty in addition to PHM. The most frequently reported additional subspecialty practice areas included: (1) neonatology (n = 155, 9.3%); (2) adolescent medicine (n = 138, 8.3%); (3) pediatric critical care (n = 89, 5.4%); (4) pediatric emergency medicine (n = 80, 4.8%); and (5) medicine-pediatrics (n = 30, 4.7%, asked only on the 2018 survey). When stratified into mutually exclusive groups, 491 respondents (29.5%) identified as practicing PHM exclusively, 518 (31.2%) identified as practicing PHM in combination with general pediatrics, and 653 (39.3%) identified as practicing PHM in combination with one or more other subspecialties.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of respondents in these three groups. Respondents reporting exclusive PHM practice were, on average, younger, more likely to be female, and more likely to be graduates of US medical schools than those reporting PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. In total, approximately two-thirds of the sample (n = 1068, 64.3%) reported holding an academic appointment, including 72.9% (n = 358) of those reporting exclusive PHM practice compared with 56.9% (n = 295) of those also reporting general pediatrics and 63.6% (n = 415) of those also reporting subspecialty care (P < .001). Respondents who reported practicing PHM exclusively most frequently worked at children’s hospitals (64.6%, n = 317), compared with 40.0% (n = 207) and 42.1% (n = 275) of those practicing PHM in combination with general and subspecialty pediatrics, respectively (P < .001).

Clinical and Nonclinical Roles and Responsibilities

The majority of respondents reported that they spent >75% of their professional time in direct clinical or consultative care, including 62.1% (n = 305) of those reporting PHM exclusively and 77.8% (n = 403) and 66.6% (n = 435) of those reporting PHM with general and subspecialty pediatrics, respectively (P < .001). Overall, <10% reported spending less than 50% of their time proving direct patient care, including 11.2% (n = 55) of those reporting exclusive PHM practice, 11.2% (n = 73) reporting PHM in combination with a subspecialty, and 6% (n = 31) in combination with general pediatrics. The mean proportion of time spent in nonclinical roles was 22.4% (SD, 20.4%), and the mean proportions of time spent in any one area (administration, research, education, or QI) were all <10%.

The proportion of time allocated to inpatient pediatric care, neonatal care, emergency care, and outpatient pediatric care varied substantially across PHM practice groups and settings. Among respondents who practiced at children’s hospitals, the median percentage of clinical time dedicated to inpatient pediatric care was 66.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 15%-100%), with neonatal care being the second most common clinical practice area (Figure, part A; Appendix Table). At community hospitals, the percentage of clinical time dedicated to inpatient pediatric care was lower, with a median of 10% (IQR, 3%-40%) (Figure, part B). Among those reporting exclusive PHM practice, the median proportion of clinical time spent delivering inpatient pediatric care was 100% (IQR, 80%-100%) at children’s hospitals and 40% (IQR, 20%-85%) at community hospitals. At community hospitals, neonatal care accounted for a similar proportion of clinical time as inpatient pediatric care for these respondents (median, 40% [IQR, 0%-70%]). With the exception of emergency room care, we observed significant differences in how clinical time was allocated by respondents reporting exclusive PHM practice compared with those reporting PHM in combination with general or specialty care (all P values < .001, Appendix Table).

Professional Development Interests

Approximately two-thirds of respondents reported interest in QI leadership or consultation (Table 2), with those reporting exclusive PHM practice significantly more likely to report this (70.3% [n = 345] compared with 57.7% [n = 297] of those practicing PHM with general pediatrics and 66.3% [n = 431] of those practicing PHM with another subspecialty, P < .001). Similarly, 69% (n = 339) of respondents who reported exclusive PHM practice described an intention to take the PHM certifying examination, compared with 20.4% (n = 105) of those practicing PHM and general pediatrics and 17.7% (n = 115) of those practicing PHM and subspeciality pediatrics (P < .001). A total of 82.5% (n = 846) of respondents reported that they were satisfied with the allocation of their professional time; there were no significant differences between those reporting exclusive PHM practice and those reporting PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. Of hospitalists reporting exclusive PHM practice, 67.8% (n = 166) reported an intention to maintain more than one ABP certification, compared with 22.1% (n = 78) of those practicing PHM and general pediatrics and 53.9% (n = 230) of those practicing PHM and subspecialty pediatrics (P < .001).

In multivariate regression analyses, hospitalists reporting exclusive PHM practice had significantly greater odds of reported interest in QI leadership or consultation (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.09-1.79), intention to take the PHM certifying exam (adjusted OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 5.45-9.25), and intention to maintain more than one ABP certification (adjusted OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.89-3.68) than those practicing PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics (Table 3). There was no significant difference across the three groups in the satisfaction with the allocation of professional time.

In this national survey of pediatricians seeking MOC from the ABP, 13.1% reported that they practiced hospital medicine, with approximately one-third of these individuals reporting that they practiced PHM exclusively. The distribution of clinical and nonclinical responsibilities differed across those reporting exclusive PHM practice relative to those practicing PHM in combination with general or subspecialty pediatrics. Relative to hospitalists who reported practicing PHM in addition to general or subspecialty care, those reporting exclusive PHM practice were significantly more likely to report an interest in QI leadership or consultation, intention to sit for the PHM board-certification exam, and intention to maintain more than one ABP certification.

These findings offer insight into the evolution of PHM and have important implications for workforce planning. The last nationally representative analysis of the PHM workforce was conducted in 2006, at which time 73% of hospitalists reported working at children’s hospitals.⁶ In the current analysis, less than 50% of hospitalists reported practicing PHM at children’s hospitals only; 10% reported working at both children’s hospitals and community hospitals and 40% at community hospitals alone. This diffusion of PHM from children’s hospitals into community hospitals represents an important development in the field and aligns with the epidemiology of pediatric hospitalization.¹⁰ Pediatric hospitalists who practice at community hospitals experience unique challenges, including a relative paucity of pediatric-specific clinical resources, limited mentorship opportunities and resources for scholarly work, and limited access to data from which to prioritize QI interventions.^11,12 Our findings also illustrate that the scope of practice for hospitalists differs at community hospitals relative to children’s hospitals. Although the PHM fellowship curriculum requires training at a community hospital, the requirement is limited to one 4-week block, which may not provide sufficient preparation for the unique clinical responsibilities in this setting.^13,14

Relative to past analyses of PHM workforce roles and responsibilities, a substantially greater proportion of respondents in the current study reported clinical responsibility for neonatal care, including more than 40% of those self-reporting practicing PHM exclusively and almost three-quarters of those self-reporting PHM in conjunction with general pediatrics.^6,15 Given that more than half of the six million US pediatric hospitalizations that occur each year represent birth hospitalizations,¹⁶ pediatric hospitalists’ responsibilities for newborn care are consistent with these patterns of hospital-based care. Expanding hospitalists’ responsibilities to provide newborn care has also been shown to improve the financial performance of PHM programs with relatively low pediatric volumes, which may further explain this finding, particularly at community hospitals.^17,18 Interestingly, although emergency department care has also been demonstrated as a model to improve the financial stability of PHM programs, relatively few hospitalists reported this as an area of clinical responsibility.^19,20 This finding contrasts with past analyses and may reflect how the scope of PHM clinical responsibilities has changed since these prior studies were conducted.^6,15

Because PHM had not been recognized as a subspecialty prior to 2016, a national count of pediatric hospitalists is lacking. In this study, approximately one in eight pediatricians reported that they practiced PHM, but less than 4% of the survey sample reported practicing PHM exclusively. Based on these results, we estimate that of the 76,214 to 89,608 ABP-certified pediatricians currently practicing in the United States, between 9984 and 11,738 would self-identify as practicing PHM, with between 2945 and 3462 reporting exclusive PHM practice.

Hospitalists who reported practicing PHM exclusively were significantly more likely to report an interest in QI leadership or consultation and plans to take the PHM certifying exam. These findings are consistent with PHM’s focus on QI, as articulated in the application to the ABMS for subspecialty status as well as the PHM Core Competencies and fellowship curriculum.^4,13,21,22 Despite past research questioning the sustainability of some community- and university-based PHM programs and wide variability in workload,^7-9 more than 80% of hospitalists reported satisfaction with the allocation of their professional time, with no significant differences between respondents practicing PHM exclusively or in combination with general or subspecialty care.

This analysis should be interpreted in light of its strengths and limitations. Strengths of this work include its national focus, large sample size, and comprehensive characterization of respondents’ professional roles and characteristics. Study limitations include the fact that respondents were classified as hospitalists based on self-report; we were unable to ascertain if they were classified as hospitalists at their place of employment or if they met the ABP’s eligibility criteria to sit for the PHM subspecialty certifying exam.¹⁹ Additionally, respondents self-reported their allocations of clinical and nonclinical time, and we are unable to correlate this with actual work hours. Respondents’ reported interest in QI leadership or consultation may not be correlated with QI effort in practice; the mean time reportedly dedicated to QI activities was quite low. Additionally, two of our outcomes were available only for respondents who enrolled in MOC in 2017, and the proportion practicing medicine-pediatrics was available only in 2018. Although this analysis represents approximately 40% of all pediatricians enrolling in MOC (2 years of the 5-year MOC cycle), it may not be representative of pediatricians who are not certified by the ABP. Finally, our outcomes related to board certification examined interest and intentions; future study will be needed to determine how many pediatricians take the PHM exam and maintain certification.

In conclusion, the field of PHM has evolved considerably since its inception, with pediatric hospitalists reporting diverse clinical and nonclinical responsibilities. Hospitalists practicing PHM exclusively were more likely to report an interest in QI leadership and intent to sit for the PHM certifying exam than those practicing PHM in combination with general pediatrics or another specialty. Continuing to monitor the evolution of PHM roles and responsibilities over time and across settings will be important to support the professional development needs of the PHM workforce.

Pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been proposed as a strategy to facilitate testing and conserve scarce laboratory resources in a variety of settings. Previously in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, we reported our initial experience with pooled testing in low-risk admitted patients from April 17, 2020, to May 11, 2020, at Saratoga Hospital, Saratoga Springs, New York.¹ Early in the pandemic, when testing resources were critically short, pooling allowed us to meet our clinical goal of testing all admitted inpatients. We now present our subsequent experience to emphasize the dynamic nature of this strategy when used to offer testing while conserving resources within a hospital system.

From April 17, 2020, to December 10, 2020, pooled testing using the GeneXpert system (Cepheid) was performed as previously described on all patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) of Saratoga Hospital who met criteria for being at low risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.¹ During this period, we had a low community prevalence (<1%-2%). In our low-risk admitted patients, an overall positive rate of 0.5% allowed us to expand the pool size from our initial reported size of three samples to a maximum of five samples. As ED volumes changed, pool sizes could be adjusted by clinical leaders as supplies allowed the demands of throughput to be met. These adjustments were facilitated by regular discussion of aggregate testing results, pool size, patient-flow issues, and supply levels among our staff. In December 2020, we experienced a marked increase in community prevalence and hospital admissions. This surge ended our use of pooling and required us to test each admitted patient with a single cartridge, which fortunately had become available.

During our period of pooling, we tested 7755 low-risk patients using 1738 cartridges (1177 pools of five samples; 211 pools of four samples; 326 pools of three samples; and 24 pools of two samples). We had 39 positive pooled cartridges, which required the use of 174 additional single cartridges. The instructions for use of this system with single cartridges report a negative percent agreement (sensitivity) of 95.6% and a positive percent agreement (specificity) of 97.8% in the lab.² We did not have any patients who tested negative in a pool subsequently turn positive during admission unless they had a known in-hospital exposure; however, our public health service alerted us to several patients with high-risk exposures who were excluded from pooling. Our pooling strategy resulted in use of 5843 fewer cartridges than if each test had been performed on a single patient. The total savings on cartridges was $225,000. Pooling did not directly increase staff costs, but required significant individual and organizational energy and commitment. At times, pooling could delay throughput of admitted patients from the ED to inpatient beds. The testing process often added 60 to 90 minutes to throughput time. During the night, waiting for admissions to create a pool could also cause delay. Close and ongoing communication among our ED, inpatient teams, nursing, and laboratory was required to minimize these negative effects.

Pooling can be an effective method of resource conservation in low-risk populations. The theoretical benefits of pooling have been calculated in various scenarios³ and recently comprehensively reviewed with emphasis on selecting the pooling method.⁴ Practically, pooling has been aptly described as a complex undertaking that should be one part of a broad approach to achieving various COVID-19 control goals.⁵ Our experience is that, in the hospital setting, it is a dynamic process that requires repeatedly balancing clinical goals, organizational realities, laboratory and mathematical parameters, and competing staff duties. The potential costs and benefits may change over time. We found success was highly dependent on our staff, who were highly motivated by strongly agreeing with our commitment to test all inpatients and our desire to maintain adequate supplies to accomplish this goal.

Pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been proposed as a strategy to facilitate testing and conserve scarce laboratory resources in a variety of settings. Previously in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, we reported our initial experience with pooled testing in low-risk admitted patients from April 17, 2020, to May 11, 2020, at Saratoga Hospital, Saratoga Springs, New York.¹ Early in the pandemic, when testing resources were critically short, pooling allowed us to meet our clinical goal of testing all admitted inpatients. We now present our subsequent experience to emphasize the dynamic nature of this strategy when used to offer testing while conserving resources within a hospital system.

From April 17, 2020, to December 10, 2020, pooled testing using the GeneXpert system (Cepheid) was performed as previously described on all patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) of Saratoga Hospital who met criteria for being at low risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.¹ During this period, we had a low community prevalence (<1%-2%). In our low-risk admitted patients, an overall positive rate of 0.5% allowed us to expand the pool size from our initial reported size of three samples to a maximum of five samples. As ED volumes changed, pool sizes could be adjusted by clinical leaders as supplies allowed the demands of throughput to be met. These adjustments were facilitated by regular discussion of aggregate testing results, pool size, patient-flow issues, and supply levels among our staff. In December 2020, we experienced a marked increase in community prevalence and hospital admissions. This surge ended our use of pooling and required us to test each admitted patient with a single cartridge, which fortunately had become available.

During our period of pooling, we tested 7755 low-risk patients using 1738 cartridges (1177 pools of five samples; 211 pools of four samples; 326 pools of three samples; and 24 pools of two samples). We had 39 positive pooled cartridges, which required the use of 174 additional single cartridges. The instructions for use of this system with single cartridges report a negative percent agreement (sensitivity) of 95.6% and a positive percent agreement (specificity) of 97.8% in the lab.² We did not have any patients who tested negative in a pool subsequently turn positive during admission unless they had a known in-hospital exposure; however, our public health service alerted us to several patients with high-risk exposures who were excluded from pooling. Our pooling strategy resulted in use of 5843 fewer cartridges than if each test had been performed on a single patient. The total savings on cartridges was $225,000. Pooling did not directly increase staff costs, but required significant individual and organizational energy and commitment. At times, pooling could delay throughput of admitted patients from the ED to inpatient beds. The testing process often added 60 to 90 minutes to throughput time. During the night, waiting for admissions to create a pool could also cause delay. Close and ongoing communication among our ED, inpatient teams, nursing, and laboratory was required to minimize these negative effects.

Pooling can be an effective method of resource conservation in low-risk populations. The theoretical benefits of pooling have been calculated in various scenarios³ and recently comprehensively reviewed with emphasis on selecting the pooling method.⁴ Practically, pooling has been aptly described as a complex undertaking that should be one part of a broad approach to achieving various COVID-19 control goals.⁵ Our experience is that, in the hospital setting, it is a dynamic process that requires repeatedly balancing clinical goals, organizational realities, laboratory and mathematical parameters, and competing staff duties. The potential costs and benefits may change over time. We found success was highly dependent on our staff, who were highly motivated by strongly agreeing with our commitment to test all inpatients and our desire to maintain adequate supplies to accomplish this goal.

Pooled testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been proposed as a strategy to facilitate testing and conserve scarce laboratory resources in a variety of settings. Previously in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, we reported our initial experience with pooled testing in low-risk admitted patients from April 17, 2020, to May 11, 2020, at Saratoga Hospital, Saratoga Springs, New York.¹ Early in the pandemic, when testing resources were critically short, pooling allowed us to meet our clinical goal of testing all admitted inpatients. We now present our subsequent experience to emphasize the dynamic nature of this strategy when used to offer testing while conserving resources within a hospital system.

From April 17, 2020, to December 10, 2020, pooled testing using the GeneXpert system (Cepheid) was performed as previously described on all patients admitted from the emergency department (ED) of Saratoga Hospital who met criteria for being at low risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.¹ During this period, we had a low community prevalence (<1%-2%). In our low-risk admitted patients, an overall positive rate of 0.5% allowed us to expand the pool size from our initial reported size of three samples to a maximum of five samples. As ED volumes changed, pool sizes could be adjusted by clinical leaders as supplies allowed the demands of throughput to be met. These adjustments were facilitated by regular discussion of aggregate testing results, pool size, patient-flow issues, and supply levels among our staff. In December 2020, we experienced a marked increase in community prevalence and hospital admissions. This surge ended our use of pooling and required us to test each admitted patient with a single cartridge, which fortunately had become available.

During our period of pooling, we tested 7755 low-risk patients using 1738 cartridges (1177 pools of five samples; 211 pools of four samples; 326 pools of three samples; and 24 pools of two samples). We had 39 positive pooled cartridges, which required the use of 174 additional single cartridges. The instructions for use of this system with single cartridges report a negative percent agreement (sensitivity) of 95.6% and a positive percent agreement (specificity) of 97.8% in the lab.² We did not have any patients who tested negative in a pool subsequently turn positive during admission unless they had a known in-hospital exposure; however, our public health service alerted us to several patients with high-risk exposures who were excluded from pooling. Our pooling strategy resulted in use of 5843 fewer cartridges than if each test had been performed on a single patient. The total savings on cartridges was $225,000. Pooling did not directly increase staff costs, but required significant individual and organizational energy and commitment. At times, pooling could delay throughput of admitted patients from the ED to inpatient beds. The testing process often added 60 to 90 minutes to throughput time. During the night, waiting for admissions to create a pool could also cause delay. Close and ongoing communication among our ED, inpatient teams, nursing, and laboratory was required to minimize these negative effects.

Pooling can be an effective method of resource conservation in low-risk populations. The theoretical benefits of pooling have been calculated in various scenarios³ and recently comprehensively reviewed with emphasis on selecting the pooling method.⁴ Practically, pooling has been aptly described as a complex undertaking that should be one part of a broad approach to achieving various COVID-19 control goals.⁵ Our experience is that, in the hospital setting, it is a dynamic process that requires repeatedly balancing clinical goals, organizational realities, laboratory and mathematical parameters, and competing staff duties. The potential costs and benefits may change over time. We found success was highly dependent on our staff, who were highly motivated by strongly agreeing with our commitment to test all inpatients and our desire to maintain adequate supplies to accomplish this goal.

You are signing over to a colleague on the COVID-19 inpatient hospital ward. You are stressed after having failed to reach the chief medical resident who did not respond despite repeated texts. You think about mentioning this apparent professional lapse to your colleague. You pause, however, because you are uncertain about the appropriate norm, hesitant around finding the right words, and unsure about a mutual feeling of camaraderie.

Lay and scientific perspectives about gossip diverge widely. Lay definitions of gossip generally include malicious, salacious, immoral, trivial, or unfair comments that attack someone else’s reputation. Scientific definitions of gossip, in contrast, also include neutral or positive social information intended to align group dynamics.¹ The common feature of both is that the named individual is not present to hear about themselves.² A further commonality is that gossip involves informal assessments loaded with subjective judgments, unlike professional comments about patients from clinicians providing care. In contrast to stereotype remarks, gossip focuses on a specific person and not a group.

Gossip is widespread. A recent study in nonhospital settings suggests nearly all adults engage in gossip during normal interactions, averaging 52 minutes on a typical day.³ Most gossip is neutral (74%) rather than negative or positive. The content usually (92%) concerns relationships, and the typical person identified (82%) is an acquaintance. Some of the potential benefits include conveying information for social learning, defining what is socially acceptable, or promoting personal connections. Men and women gossip to nearly the same degree.⁴ Indeed, evolutionary theory suggests gossip is not deviant behavior and arises even in small hunter-gatherer communities.⁵Social psychology science provides some insights on fundamental principles of gossip that may be relevant to clinicians in medicine.⁶ In this article, we review three important findings from social psychology science relevant to team cooperation, the specific transmitter, and the individual receiver (Table 1). Clinicians working in groups may benefit from recognizing the prosocial function of healthy gossip and avoiding the antisocial adverse effects of harmful gossip.⁷ At a time when work-related conversations have radically shifted online,⁸ hospitalists need to be aware of positives and pitfalls of gossip to help provide effective medical care and avoid adverse events.

Large team endeavors often require social signals to coordinate people.⁹ Gossip helps groups establish reputations, monitor their members, deter antisocial behavior, and protect newcomers from exploitation.¹⁰ Sharing social information can also indirectly promote cooperation because individuals place a high value on their own reputations and want to avoid embarrassment.^11,12 The absence of gossip, in contrast, may lead individuals to be oblivious to team expectations and fail to do their fair share. A lack of gossip, in particular, may add to inefficiencies during the COVID-19 pandemic since exchanging gossip seems to feel awkward over email or other digital channels (albeit a chat function for side conversations in virtual meetings is a partial substitute).^13,14

A paradigm for testing the positive effects of gossip involves a trust game where participants consider making small contributions for later rewards in recurrent rounds of cooperation.^15-17 In one online study of volunteers, for example, individuals contributed to a group account and gained rewards equal to a doubling of total contributions shared over everyone equally (even those contributing nothing).¹⁸ Half the experiments allowed participants to send notes about other participants, whereas the other experiments allowed no such “gossip.” As predicted, gossip increased the proportion contributed (40% vs 32%, P = .020) and average total reward (64 vs 56, P = .002). In this and other studies of healthy volunteers, gossip builds trust and increases gains for the entire group.^19-22

Effective medical practice inside hospitals often involves constructive gossip for pointers on how to behave (eg, how quickly to reply to a text message from the ward pharmacist). The blend of objective facts with subjective opinion provides a compelling message otherwise lacking from institutional guidelines or directives on how not to behave (eg, how quickly to complete an annual report with an arbitrary deadline). Gossip is the antithesis of a cursory interaction between strangers and is also less awkward than open flattery or public ridicule that may occur when the third person is in earshot.²³ Even negative social comparisons can be constructive to listeners since people want to know how to avoid bad gossip about themselves in a world with changing morality.²⁴

Gossip can provide a distinct emotional benefit for the gossiper as a form of self-expression, an exercise of justice, and a validation of one’s perspective.²⁵ Consider, for example, witnessing an antisocial act that leads to subsequent feelings of unfairness yet having no way to communicate personal dissatisfaction. Similarly, expressing prosocial gossip may help relieve some of the annoyance after a hassle (eg, talking with a friend after encountering a new onerous hospital protocol). The sharing of gossip might also help bolster solidarity after an offense (eg, talking with a friend on how to deal with another warning from health records).²⁶ In contrast, lost opportunities to gossip about unfairness could be exacerbating the social isolation and emotional distress of the COVID-19 pandemic.^27,28

A rigorous example of the emotional benefits of expressing gossip involves undergraduates witnessing staged behavior under laboratory conditions where one actor appeared to exploit the generosity of another actor.²⁹ By random assignment, half the participants had an opportunity to gossip, and the other half had no such opportunity. All participants reacted to the antisocial behavior by feeling frustrated (self-report survey scale of 0-100, where higher scores indicate worse frustration). Importantly, almost all chose to engage in gossip when feasible, and those who had the opportunity to gossip experienced more relief than those who had no opportunity (absolute improvement in frustration scores, 9.69 vs 0.16; P < .01). Evidentially, engaging in prosocial gossip can sometimes provide solace.

Sharing gossip might strengthen social bonds, bolster self-esteem, promote personal power, elicit reciprocal favors, or telegraph the presence of a larger network of personal connections. Gossip is cheap and efficient compared with peer-sanctioning or formal sanctioning to control behavior.³⁰ Airing grievances through gossip may also solve some social dilemmas more easily than channeling messages through institutional reporting structures or formal performance reviews. Gossip has another advantage of raising delicate comparative judgments without the discomfort of direct confrontation (eg, defining the appropriate level of detail for a case presentation is perhaps best done by identifying those who are judged too verbose).³¹

People tend to enjoy listening to gossip despite the uneven quality where some comments are more valuable than others. The receiver, therefore, faces an irregular payoff similar to random intermittent reinforcement. Ironically, random intermittent reinforcement can be particularly addictive when compared with steady rewards with predictable payoffs. This includes cases where gossip conveys good news that helps elevate, inspire, or motivate the receiver. The thirst for more gossip may partially explain why receivers keep seeking gossip despite knowing the material may be unimportant. The shortfall of enticing gossip might also be another factor adding to a feeling of loneliness that prevails widely during the COVID-19 pandemic.^32,33

Classic research on reinforcement includes experiments examining operant conditioning for creating addiction.^34,35 An important distinction is the contrast between random reinforcement (eg, variable reward akin to gambling on a roulette wheel) and consistent reinforcement (eg, regular pay akin to a steady salary each week). In a study of pigeons trained to peck a lever for food, for example, random reinforcement resulted in twice the response compared with consistent reinforcement (despite an equalized total amount of food received).³⁶ Moreover, random reinforcement was hard to extinguish, and the behavior continued long after all food ended. In general, random compared with consistent reinforcement tended to cause a more intense and persistent change of behavior.

The inconsistent quality makes the prospect of new, exciting gossip seem nearly impossible to resist; indeed, gossip from any source is surprisingly tantalizing. Moreover, the validity of gossip is rarely challenged, unlike the typical norm of lively thoughtful debate that surrounds new ideas (eg, whether to prescribe a novel medication).² Gossip, of course, can also lead to a positive thrill where, for example, a recipient subsequently feels emboldened with passionate enthusiasm to relay the point to others. This means that spreading inaccurate characterizations may be particularly destructive for a listener who is gullible or easily provoked.³⁷ Conversely, gossip can also lead to anxiety about future uncertainties.³⁸

This perspective summarizes positive and negative features of gossip drawn from social psychology science on a normally hidden activity. The main benefits in medical care are to support team communication, the specific transmitter, and the individual receiver. Some specific gains are to enhance team cooperation, deter exploitation, signal trust, and convey codes of conduct. Sharing gossip might also promote honest dialogue, foster friendships, facilitate reciprocity, and curtail excessive use of force by a dominant individual. Listening to gossip possibly also reduces loneliness, affirms an innate desire for inclusion, and provides a way to share insights. Of course, gossip has downsides from direct or indirect adverse effects that merit attention and mitigation (Table 2).

A large direct downside of gossip is in propagating damaging misinformation that harms individuals.²⁴ Toxic gossip can wreck relationships, hurt feelings, violate privacy, and manipulate others. Malicious gossip may become further accentuated because of groupthink, polarization, or selfish biases.³⁹ Presumably, these downsides of gossip are sufficiently infrequent because regular people spend substantial time, attention, and effort engaging in gossip.³ In society, healthy gossip that propagates positive information goes by synonyms having a less negative connotation, including socializing, networking, chatting, schmoozing, friendly banter, small talk, and scuttlebutt. The net benefits must be real since one person is often both a transmitter and a receiver of gossip over time.

Another large direct limitation of gossip is that it can magnify social inequities by allowing some people but not others to access hidden information. In essence, receiving gossip is a privilege that is not universally available within a community and depends on social capital.⁴⁰ Gossip helps strengthen personal bonds, so marginalized individuals can become further disempowered by not receiving gossip. Social exclusion is painful when different individuals realize they are left out of gossip circles. In summary, gossip can provide an unfair advantage because it allows only some people to learn what is going on behind their backs (eg, different hospitalists within the same institution may have differing circles of friendships for different professional advantages).

Gossip is a way to communicate priorities and regulate behavior. Without interpersonal comparisons, clinicians might find themselves adrift in a complex, difficult, and mysterious medical world. Listening to intelligent gossip can also be an effective way to learn lessons that are otherwise difficult to grasp (eg, an impolite comment may be more easily recognized in someone else than in yourself).⁴¹ Perhaps this explains why hospital executives gossip about physicians and vice versa.⁴² Healthy gossip tends to be positive or neutral (not malicious or negative), propagates accurate information (not hurtful falsehoods), and corrects social inequities (not worsening unearned privileges).⁴³ We suggest that a careful practice of healthy gossip may help regulate trust, enhance social bonding, shape how people feel working together, and promote collective benefit.

Your colleague spontaneously comments that the chief medical resident is away because of a death in the family. In turn, you realize you were unaware of this personal nuance because the point was unmentioned in the (virtual) staff meeting last week. You thank your colleague for tactfully relaying the point. You also secretly wonder what other interpersonal details you might be missing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors thank Cindy Kao, Fizza Manzoor, Sheharyar Raza, Lee Ross, Miriam Shuchman, and William Silverstein for helpful suggestions on specific points.

You are signing over to a colleague on the COVID-19 inpatient hospital ward. You are stressed after having failed to reach the chief medical resident who did not respond despite repeated texts. You think about mentioning this apparent professional lapse to your colleague. You pause, however, because you are uncertain about the appropriate norm, hesitant around finding the right words, and unsure about a mutual feeling of camaraderie.

Lay and scientific perspectives about gossip diverge widely. Lay definitions of gossip generally include malicious, salacious, immoral, trivial, or unfair comments that attack someone else’s reputation. Scientific definitions of gossip, in contrast, also include neutral or positive social information intended to align group dynamics.¹ The common feature of both is that the named individual is not present to hear about themselves.² A further commonality is that gossip involves informal assessments loaded with subjective judgments, unlike professional comments about patients from clinicians providing care. In contrast to stereotype remarks, gossip focuses on a specific person and not a group.

Gossip is widespread. A recent study in nonhospital settings suggests nearly all adults engage in gossip during normal interactions, averaging 52 minutes on a typical day.³ Most gossip is neutral (74%) rather than negative or positive. The content usually (92%) concerns relationships, and the typical person identified (82%) is an acquaintance. Some of the potential benefits include conveying information for social learning, defining what is socially acceptable, or promoting personal connections. Men and women gossip to nearly the same degree.⁴ Indeed, evolutionary theory suggests gossip is not deviant behavior and arises even in small hunter-gatherer communities.⁵Social psychology science provides some insights on fundamental principles of gossip that may be relevant to clinicians in medicine.⁶ In this article, we review three important findings from social psychology science relevant to team cooperation, the specific transmitter, and the individual receiver (Table 1). Clinicians working in groups may benefit from recognizing the prosocial function of healthy gossip and avoiding the antisocial adverse effects of harmful gossip.⁷ At a time when work-related conversations have radically shifted online,⁸ hospitalists need to be aware of positives and pitfalls of gossip to help provide effective medical care and avoid adverse events.

Large team endeavors often require social signals to coordinate people.⁹ Gossip helps groups establish reputations, monitor their members, deter antisocial behavior, and protect newcomers from exploitation.¹⁰ Sharing social information can also indirectly promote cooperation because individuals place a high value on their own reputations and want to avoid embarrassment.^11,12 The absence of gossip, in contrast, may lead individuals to be oblivious to team expectations and fail to do their fair share. A lack of gossip, in particular, may add to inefficiencies during the COVID-19 pandemic since exchanging gossip seems to feel awkward over email or other digital channels (albeit a chat function for side conversations in virtual meetings is a partial substitute).^13,14

A paradigm for testing the positive effects of gossip involves a trust game where participants consider making small contributions for later rewards in recurrent rounds of cooperation.^15-17 In one online study of volunteers, for example, individuals contributed to a group account and gained rewards equal to a doubling of total contributions shared over everyone equally (even those contributing nothing).¹⁸ Half the experiments allowed participants to send notes about other participants, whereas the other experiments allowed no such “gossip.” As predicted, gossip increased the proportion contributed (40% vs 32%, P = .020) and average total reward (64 vs 56, P = .002). In this and other studies of healthy volunteers, gossip builds trust and increases gains for the entire group.^19-22

Effective medical practice inside hospitals often involves constructive gossip for pointers on how to behave (eg, how quickly to reply to a text message from the ward pharmacist). The blend of objective facts with subjective opinion provides a compelling message otherwise lacking from institutional guidelines or directives on how not to behave (eg, how quickly to complete an annual report with an arbitrary deadline). Gossip is the antithesis of a cursory interaction between strangers and is also less awkward than open flattery or public ridicule that may occur when the third person is in earshot.²³ Even negative social comparisons can be constructive to listeners since people want to know how to avoid bad gossip about themselves in a world with changing morality.²⁴

Gossip can provide a distinct emotional benefit for the gossiper as a form of self-expression, an exercise of justice, and a validation of one’s perspective.²⁵ Consider, for example, witnessing an antisocial act that leads to subsequent feelings of unfairness yet having no way to communicate personal dissatisfaction. Similarly, expressing prosocial gossip may help relieve some of the annoyance after a hassle (eg, talking with a friend after encountering a new onerous hospital protocol). The sharing of gossip might also help bolster solidarity after an offense (eg, talking with a friend on how to deal with another warning from health records).²⁶ In contrast, lost opportunities to gossip about unfairness could be exacerbating the social isolation and emotional distress of the COVID-19 pandemic.^27,28

A rigorous example of the emotional benefits of expressing gossip involves undergraduates witnessing staged behavior under laboratory conditions where one actor appeared to exploit the generosity of another actor.²⁹ By random assignment, half the participants had an opportunity to gossip, and the other half had no such opportunity. All participants reacted to the antisocial behavior by feeling frustrated (self-report survey scale of 0-100, where higher scores indicate worse frustration). Importantly, almost all chose to engage in gossip when feasible, and those who had the opportunity to gossip experienced more relief than those who had no opportunity (absolute improvement in frustration scores, 9.69 vs 0.16; P < .01). Evidentially, engaging in prosocial gossip can sometimes provide solace.

Sharing gossip might strengthen social bonds, bolster self-esteem, promote personal power, elicit reciprocal favors, or telegraph the presence of a larger network of personal connections. Gossip is cheap and efficient compared with peer-sanctioning or formal sanctioning to control behavior.³⁰ Airing grievances through gossip may also solve some social dilemmas more easily than channeling messages through institutional reporting structures or formal performance reviews. Gossip has another advantage of raising delicate comparative judgments without the discomfort of direct confrontation (eg, defining the appropriate level of detail for a case presentation is perhaps best done by identifying those who are judged too verbose).³¹

People tend to enjoy listening to gossip despite the uneven quality where some comments are more valuable than others. The receiver, therefore, faces an irregular payoff similar to random intermittent reinforcement. Ironically, random intermittent reinforcement can be particularly addictive when compared with steady rewards with predictable payoffs. This includes cases where gossip conveys good news that helps elevate, inspire, or motivate the receiver. The thirst for more gossip may partially explain why receivers keep seeking gossip despite knowing the material may be unimportant. The shortfall of enticing gossip might also be another factor adding to a feeling of loneliness that prevails widely during the COVID-19 pandemic.^32,33

Classic research on reinforcement includes experiments examining operant conditioning for creating addiction.^34,35 An important distinction is the contrast between random reinforcement (eg, variable reward akin to gambling on a roulette wheel) and consistent reinforcement (eg, regular pay akin to a steady salary each week). In a study of pigeons trained to peck a lever for food, for example, random reinforcement resulted in twice the response compared with consistent reinforcement (despite an equalized total amount of food received).³⁶ Moreover, random reinforcement was hard to extinguish, and the behavior continued long after all food ended. In general, random compared with consistent reinforcement tended to cause a more intense and persistent change of behavior.

The inconsistent quality makes the prospect of new, exciting gossip seem nearly impossible to resist; indeed, gossip from any source is surprisingly tantalizing. Moreover, the validity of gossip is rarely challenged, unlike the typical norm of lively thoughtful debate that surrounds new ideas (eg, whether to prescribe a novel medication).² Gossip, of course, can also lead to a positive thrill where, for example, a recipient subsequently feels emboldened with passionate enthusiasm to relay the point to others. This means that spreading inaccurate characterizations may be particularly destructive for a listener who is gullible or easily provoked.³⁷ Conversely, gossip can also lead to anxiety about future uncertainties.³⁸

This perspective summarizes positive and negative features of gossip drawn from social psychology science on a normally hidden activity. The main benefits in medical care are to support team communication, the specific transmitter, and the individual receiver. Some specific gains are to enhance team cooperation, deter exploitation, signal trust, and convey codes of conduct. Sharing gossip might also promote honest dialogue, foster friendships, facilitate reciprocity, and curtail excessive use of force by a dominant individual. Listening to gossip possibly also reduces loneliness, affirms an innate desire for inclusion, and provides a way to share insights. Of course, gossip has downsides from direct or indirect adverse effects that merit attention and mitigation (Table 2).

A large direct downside of gossip is in propagating damaging misinformation that harms individuals.²⁴ Toxic gossip can wreck relationships, hurt feelings, violate privacy, and manipulate others. Malicious gossip may become further accentuated because of groupthink, polarization, or selfish biases.³⁹ Presumably, these downsides of gossip are sufficiently infrequent because regular people spend substantial time, attention, and effort engaging in gossip.³ In society, healthy gossip that propagates positive information goes by synonyms having a less negative connotation, including socializing, networking, chatting, schmoozing, friendly banter, small talk, and scuttlebutt. The net benefits must be real since one person is often both a transmitter and a receiver of gossip over time.

Another large direct limitation of gossip is that it can magnify social inequities by allowing some people but not others to access hidden information. In essence, receiving gossip is a privilege that is not universally available within a community and depends on social capital.⁴⁰ Gossip helps strengthen personal bonds, so marginalized individuals can become further disempowered by not receiving gossip. Social exclusion is painful when different individuals realize they are left out of gossip circles. In summary, gossip can provide an unfair advantage because it allows only some people to learn what is going on behind their backs (eg, different hospitalists within the same institution may have differing circles of friendships for different professional advantages).

Gossip is a way to communicate priorities and regulate behavior. Without interpersonal comparisons, clinicians might find themselves adrift in a complex, difficult, and mysterious medical world. Listening to intelligent gossip can also be an effective way to learn lessons that are otherwise difficult to grasp (eg, an impolite comment may be more easily recognized in someone else than in yourself).⁴¹ Perhaps this explains why hospital executives gossip about physicians and vice versa.⁴² Healthy gossip tends to be positive or neutral (not malicious or negative), propagates accurate information (not hurtful falsehoods), and corrects social inequities (not worsening unearned privileges).⁴³ We suggest that a careful practice of healthy gossip may help regulate trust, enhance social bonding, shape how people feel working together, and promote collective benefit.

Your colleague spontaneously comments that the chief medical resident is away because of a death in the family. In turn, you realize you were unaware of this personal nuance because the point was unmentioned in the (virtual) staff meeting last week. You thank your colleague for tactfully relaying the point. You also secretly wonder what other interpersonal details you might be missing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors thank Cindy Kao, Fizza Manzoor, Sheharyar Raza, Lee Ross, Miriam Shuchman, and William Silverstein for helpful suggestions on specific points.

You are signing over to a colleague on the COVID-19 inpatient hospital ward. You are stressed after having failed to reach the chief medical resident who did not respond despite repeated texts. You think about mentioning this apparent professional lapse to your colleague. You pause, however, because you are uncertain about the appropriate norm, hesitant around finding the right words, and unsure about a mutual feeling of camaraderie.

Lay and scientific perspectives about gossip diverge widely. Lay definitions of gossip generally include malicious, salacious, immoral, trivial, or unfair comments that attack someone else’s reputation. Scientific definitions of gossip, in contrast, also include neutral or positive social information intended to align group dynamics.¹ The common feature of both is that the named individual is not present to hear about themselves.² A further commonality is that gossip involves informal assessments loaded with subjective judgments, unlike professional comments about patients from clinicians providing care. In contrast to stereotype remarks, gossip focuses on a specific person and not a group.

Gossip is widespread. A recent study in nonhospital settings suggests nearly all adults engage in gossip during normal interactions, averaging 52 minutes on a typical day.³ Most gossip is neutral (74%) rather than negative or positive. The content usually (92%) concerns relationships, and the typical person identified (82%) is an acquaintance. Some of the potential benefits include conveying information for social learning, defining what is socially acceptable, or promoting personal connections. Men and women gossip to nearly the same degree.⁴ Indeed, evolutionary theory suggests gossip is not deviant behavior and arises even in small hunter-gatherer communities.⁵Social psychology science provides some insights on fundamental principles of gossip that may be relevant to clinicians in medicine.⁶ In this article, we review three important findings from social psychology science relevant to team cooperation, the specific transmitter, and the individual receiver (Table 1). Clinicians working in groups may benefit from recognizing the prosocial function of healthy gossip and avoiding the antisocial adverse effects of harmful gossip.⁷ At a time when work-related conversations have radically shifted online,⁸ hospitalists need to be aware of positives and pitfalls of gossip to help provide effective medical care and avoid adverse events.

Large team endeavors often require social signals to coordinate people.⁹ Gossip helps groups establish reputations, monitor their members, deter antisocial behavior, and protect newcomers from exploitation.¹⁰ Sharing social information can also indirectly promote cooperation because individuals place a high value on their own reputations and want to avoid embarrassment.^11,12 The absence of gossip, in contrast, may lead individuals to be oblivious to team expectations and fail to do their fair share. A lack of gossip, in particular, may add to inefficiencies during the COVID-19 pandemic since exchanging gossip seems to feel awkward over email or other digital channels (albeit a chat function for side conversations in virtual meetings is a partial substitute).^13,14

A paradigm for testing the positive effects of gossip involves a trust game where participants consider making small contributions for later rewards in recurrent rounds of cooperation.^15-17 In one online study of volunteers, for example, individuals contributed to a group account and gained rewards equal to a doubling of total contributions shared over everyone equally (even those contributing nothing).¹⁸ Half the experiments allowed participants to send notes about other participants, whereas the other experiments allowed no such “gossip.” As predicted, gossip increased the proportion contributed (40% vs 32%, P = .020) and average total reward (64 vs 56, P = .002). In this and other studies of healthy volunteers, gossip builds trust and increases gains for the entire group.^19-22

Effective medical practice inside hospitals often involves constructive gossip for pointers on how to behave (eg, how quickly to reply to a text message from the ward pharmacist). The blend of objective facts with subjective opinion provides a compelling message otherwise lacking from institutional guidelines or directives on how not to behave (eg, how quickly to complete an annual report with an arbitrary deadline). Gossip is the antithesis of a cursory interaction between strangers and is also less awkward than open flattery or public ridicule that may occur when the third person is in earshot.²³ Even negative social comparisons can be constructive to listeners since people want to know how to avoid bad gossip about themselves in a world with changing morality.²⁴

Gossip can provide a distinct emotional benefit for the gossiper as a form of self-expression, an exercise of justice, and a validation of one’s perspective.²⁵ Consider, for example, witnessing an antisocial act that leads to subsequent feelings of unfairness yet having no way to communicate personal dissatisfaction. Similarly, expressing prosocial gossip may help relieve some of the annoyance after a hassle (eg, talking with a friend after encountering a new onerous hospital protocol). The sharing of gossip might also help bolster solidarity after an offense (eg, talking with a friend on how to deal with another warning from health records).²⁶ In contrast, lost opportunities to gossip about unfairness could be exacerbating the social isolation and emotional distress of the COVID-19 pandemic.^27,28

A rigorous example of the emotional benefits of expressing gossip involves undergraduates witnessing staged behavior under laboratory conditions where one actor appeared to exploit the generosity of another actor.²⁹ By random assignment, half the participants had an opportunity to gossip, and the other half had no such opportunity. All participants reacted to the antisocial behavior by feeling frustrated (self-report survey scale of 0-100, where higher scores indicate worse frustration). Importantly, almost all chose to engage in gossip when feasible, and those who had the opportunity to gossip experienced more relief than those who had no opportunity (absolute improvement in frustration scores, 9.69 vs 0.16; P < .01). Evidentially, engaging in prosocial gossip can sometimes provide solace.

Sharing gossip might strengthen social bonds, bolster self-esteem, promote personal power, elicit reciprocal favors, or telegraph the presence of a larger network of personal connections. Gossip is cheap and efficient compared with peer-sanctioning or formal sanctioning to control behavior.³⁰ Airing grievances through gossip may also solve some social dilemmas more easily than channeling messages through institutional reporting structures or formal performance reviews. Gossip has another advantage of raising delicate comparative judgments without the discomfort of direct confrontation (eg, defining the appropriate level of detail for a case presentation is perhaps best done by identifying those who are judged too verbose).³¹

People tend to enjoy listening to gossip despite the uneven quality where some comments are more valuable than others. The receiver, therefore, faces an irregular payoff similar to random intermittent reinforcement. Ironically, random intermittent reinforcement can be particularly addictive when compared with steady rewards with predictable payoffs. This includes cases where gossip conveys good news that helps elevate, inspire, or motivate the receiver. The thirst for more gossip may partially explain why receivers keep seeking gossip despite knowing the material may be unimportant. The shortfall of enticing gossip might also be another factor adding to a feeling of loneliness that prevails widely during the COVID-19 pandemic.^32,33

Classic research on reinforcement includes experiments examining operant conditioning for creating addiction.^34,35 An important distinction is the contrast between random reinforcement (eg, variable reward akin to gambling on a roulette wheel) and consistent reinforcement (eg, regular pay akin to a steady salary each week). In a study of pigeons trained to peck a lever for food, for example, random reinforcement resulted in twice the response compared with consistent reinforcement (despite an equalized total amount of food received).³⁶ Moreover, random reinforcement was hard to extinguish, and the behavior continued long after all food ended. In general, random compared with consistent reinforcement tended to cause a more intense and persistent change of behavior.

The inconsistent quality makes the prospect of new, exciting gossip seem nearly impossible to resist; indeed, gossip from any source is surprisingly tantalizing. Moreover, the validity of gossip is rarely challenged, unlike the typical norm of lively thoughtful debate that surrounds new ideas (eg, whether to prescribe a novel medication).² Gossip, of course, can also lead to a positive thrill where, for example, a recipient subsequently feels emboldened with passionate enthusiasm to relay the point to others. This means that spreading inaccurate characterizations may be particularly destructive for a listener who is gullible or easily provoked.³⁷ Conversely, gossip can also lead to anxiety about future uncertainties.³⁸

This perspective summarizes positive and negative features of gossip drawn from social psychology science on a normally hidden activity. The main benefits in medical care are to support team communication, the specific transmitter, and the individual receiver. Some specific gains are to enhance team cooperation, deter exploitation, signal trust, and convey codes of conduct. Sharing gossip might also promote honest dialogue, foster friendships, facilitate reciprocity, and curtail excessive use of force by a dominant individual. Listening to gossip possibly also reduces loneliness, affirms an innate desire for inclusion, and provides a way to share insights. Of course, gossip has downsides from direct or indirect adverse effects that merit attention and mitigation (Table 2).

A large direct downside of gossip is in propagating damaging misinformation that harms individuals.²⁴ Toxic gossip can wreck relationships, hurt feelings, violate privacy, and manipulate others. Malicious gossip may become further accentuated because of groupthink, polarization, or selfish biases.³⁹ Presumably, these downsides of gossip are sufficiently infrequent because regular people spend substantial time, attention, and effort engaging in gossip.³ In society, healthy gossip that propagates positive information goes by synonyms having a less negative connotation, including socializing, networking, chatting, schmoozing, friendly banter, small talk, and scuttlebutt. The net benefits must be real since one person is often both a transmitter and a receiver of gossip over time.

Another large direct limitation of gossip is that it can magnify social inequities by allowing some people but not others to access hidden information. In essence, receiving gossip is a privilege that is not universally available within a community and depends on social capital.⁴⁰ Gossip helps strengthen personal bonds, so marginalized individuals can become further disempowered by not receiving gossip. Social exclusion is painful when different individuals realize they are left out of gossip circles. In summary, gossip can provide an unfair advantage because it allows only some people to learn what is going on behind their backs (eg, different hospitalists within the same institution may have differing circles of friendships for different professional advantages).

Gossip is a way to communicate priorities and regulate behavior. Without interpersonal comparisons, clinicians might find themselves adrift in a complex, difficult, and mysterious medical world. Listening to intelligent gossip can also be an effective way to learn lessons that are otherwise difficult to grasp (eg, an impolite comment may be more easily recognized in someone else than in yourself).⁴¹ Perhaps this explains why hospital executives gossip about physicians and vice versa.⁴² Healthy gossip tends to be positive or neutral (not malicious or negative), propagates accurate information (not hurtful falsehoods), and corrects social inequities (not worsening unearned privileges).⁴³ We suggest that a careful practice of healthy gossip may help regulate trust, enhance social bonding, shape how people feel working together, and promote collective benefit.

Your colleague spontaneously comments that the chief medical resident is away because of a death in the family. In turn, you realize you were unaware of this personal nuance because the point was unmentioned in the (virtual) staff meeting last week. You thank your colleague for tactfully relaying the point. You also secretly wonder what other interpersonal details you might be missing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors thank Cindy Kao, Fizza Manzoor, Sheharyar Raza, Lee Ross, Miriam Shuchman, and William Silverstein for helpful suggestions on specific points.