The burden of chronic liver disease (CLD) in the United States is growing, and it is currently the fourth leading cause of death in adults aged 45 to 64 years.¹ From 2012 to 2016, there were 538,720 hospitalizations in the United States for patients with cirrhosis, with almost a quarter having at least one cirrhosis-related complication. Inpatient hospitalizations for cirrhosis contribute to healthcare resource utilization, with a mean cost per CLD-related hospitalization of $16,271, and the presence of cirrhosis results in higher mortality and cost burden.¹

In hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis with ascites, intravenous human albumin (HA) infusion has been utilized for decades for a variety of indications. Current guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommends the use of albumin for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) for the prevention of kidney injury in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and for the diagnosis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).^2,3 There have been several major trials in recent years studying the use of HA for other indications in patients with cirrhosis, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) updated their guidelines in 2020 to recommend HA administration in resuscitation of critically ill patients with liver failure with hypoalbuminemia.⁴This Clinical Progress Note addresses the use of albumin in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, focusing on current indications and discussing potential uses published after the 2018 EASL guidelines. We conducted a literature search via the PubMed database. The authors began by using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms albumins/administration AND dosage; organization AND administration; adverse effects; and therapeutic use combined with liver cirrhosis as a MeSH major topic, which yielded 107 English-language articles published in the previous 10 years, and MeSH major topics of albumins and liver cirrhosis, which yielded 461 English-language articles, with 178 published in the previous 10 years. The search results were reviewed for applicability to albumin strategies for patients with cirrhosis.

There are three widely accepted and evidence-based indications for HA infusion in patients with cirrhosis, considered standard of care (Table).

Prevention of PICD

Therapeutic large-volume paracentesis (LVP) leads to a rise in plasma renin activity (PRA) centrally through several mechanisms and is not impacted by the rate of ascites removal.⁵ LVP relieves abdominal pressure, increasing venous return to the heart and cardiac output, and the corresponding drop in systemic vascular resistance with splanchnic vasodilation decreases effective circulating volume and activates the renin-angiotensin system. This PRA activation and circulatory dysfunction are associated with reaccumulating ascites, renal impairment, hypervolemic hyponatremia, and increased mortality.⁶ A large meta-analysis of 17 trials with 1225 patients found that HA infusion improves outcomes and reduces mortality for patients undergoing LVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98), reduces the risk of PICD more than other volume expanders tested, and lowers the incidence of hyponatremia.⁶ More recently, in 2017, Kütting et al⁷ analyzed 21 trials with 1277 patients and did not observe a significant mortality benefit for HA after LVP (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11). However, negative outcomes such as rise in PRA (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) and hyponatremia (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.94) were prevented. Guidelines recommend HA after LVP ≥5 L to prevent PICD, with a replacement volume of 6 to 8 g of albumin per liter of ascitic fluid removed.^2,3 Some patients may be at higher risk for PICD with less ascites removed, and the AASLD supports the use of HA to prevent PICD after smaller-volume paracentesis in patients who are already hypotensive (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) or hyponatremic (<130 mmol/L), or have acute kidney injury.³

Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is diagnosed by paracentesis, defined as ascitic neutrophil count ≥250 cells/µL with or without bacterascites (positive bacteriological culture). Bacterascites may be a precursor to the development of SBP, with the fluid neutrophil count of ≥250 determining the need for SBP treatment.² SBP can lead to circulatory dysfunction, hepatic encephalopathy, and HRS. Treating SBP with HA in addition to antibiotics reduces the risk of kidney injury compared with antibiotics alone (OR for kidney injury with antibiotics alone, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.3-16.1) and also reduces the risk of death (OR for mortality with antibiotics alone, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.0-20.9).⁸ The AASLD recommends albumin in addition to antibiotics in SBP to prevent HRS and acute kidney injury, and high-risk patients who already have kidney dysfunction (creatinine >1 mg/dL) or jaundice (total bilirubin >5 mg/dL) are more likely to benefit from albumin. The treatment schedule is 25% HA at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1 g/kg on day 3.³ The EASL recommends administering HA to all patients with cirrhosis with SBP regardless of renal or liver indices. They acknowledge, however, that the incidence of SBP-associated acute kidney injury will be low in patients without severe hepatic disease or baseline renal impairment.²

Hepatorenal Syndrome

Albumin combined with vasoconstrictors is effective in treating HRS with a response rate of 20% to 80% (average, 50%).³ Vasoactive medications can include combination midodrine and octreotide or norepinephrine (or terlipressin outside of the United States). In patients with suspected HRS, the recommended dosing of 25% HA is 1 g/kg (to a maximum of 100 g of albumin) on day 1 and then 40 to 50 g daily for at least 3 days after the diagnosis is confirmed.³ The optimal duration of therapy beyond 3 days of combined therapy with midodrine, albumin, and octreotide is not established. Terlipressin treatment is recommended for a maximum of 14 days in cases of partial response or nonresponse in renal recovery.²

Hypoalbuminemia

Albumin administration to raise serum albumin levels in hospitalized patients has been a common practice. However, new evidence suggests that treating hypoalbuminemia with infusion of HA in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis does not protect patients from risk and causes harm. The Albumin To prevenT Infection in chronic liveR (ATTIRE) trial, published in 2021, randomly assigned 777 patients across 35 centers in the United Kingdom to receive daily 20% HA to target a serum albumin level of 3.0 g/dL vs standard care, including HA for established indications.^2,3 The primary end point was a composite of infection, kidney dysfunction, and death within 3 to 15 days of initiating treatment. There were no differences in the primary end point; secondary end points of death at 28 days, 3 months, or 6 months; or duration of hospitalization. The treatment group received 10 times more albumin than the control group and reported more adverse events, including pulmonary edema.⁹

Long-Term Treatment in Patients With Ascites

The human Albumin for the treatmeNt of aScites in patients With hEpatic ciRrhosis (ANSWER) trial, published in 2018, found improved 18-month survival in patients with cirrhosis and ascites treated with diuretics who received long-term albumin. This was an open-label trial of 431 patients at 33 sites in Italy, and the treatment arm received weekly infusions of 40 g of 20% HA. They observed a 38% reduction in mortality hazard ratio and half the number of hospital days annually.¹⁰ Based on these data and those from a 2006 Italian study with similar design and results, the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF) strongly recommends long-term albumin treatment in patients with cirrhosis with ascites.¹¹ The lead author on the ANSWER trial also authored the AISF statement, although this recommendation has not been adopted by the EASL or the AASLD.

Conversely, the Midodrine and Albumin for CirrHoTic patients (MACHT) trial, also published in 2018, randomly assigned 173 patients with ascites awaiting liver transplant to receive 40 g of HA every 15 days and midodrine in addition to standard care vs placebo. MACHT found no difference in mortality or complications at 1 year.¹²

Long-term albumin therapy as a preventive measure may be a disease modifier, taking advantage of the pleiotropic effects of albumin, though the differing conclusions from ANSWER and MACHT necessitate additional trials. The ongoing PRECIOSA study in Spain is assessing dosage and schedule for this therapy.¹³

Augmenting Diuresis

Loop diuretics are highly protein-bound, and, with hypoalbuminemia, there is less effective drug delivered to the site of action. One clinical approach is to augment diuretics with concomitant HA infusion. This approach is not supported by strong evidence or guidelines.

Hyponatremia

In a retrospective cohort study of 2435 hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, 1126 of whom had hyponatremia, those patients with sodium <130 mmol/L who received HA were more likely to have resolution of hyponatremia to >135 mmol/L. This was associated with improved 30-day survival.¹⁴ From this observational data, the AASLD supports the use of albumin combined with extreme fluid restriction (<1000 mL/d) for patients with severe hyponatremia (<120 mmol/L).³

Non-SBP Infections

A 2019 meta-analysis found no evidence of a benefit of HA for bacterial infections other than SBP. However, only three trials encompassing 407 patients met the inclusion criteria.¹⁵

SCCM Guideline Update: Hypoalbuminemia and Hypotension

The 2020 SCCM Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU “suggest using albumin for resuscitation of patients [with liver failure] over other fluids, especially when serum albumin is low (<3 g/dL).” Acute-on-chronic liver failure is decompensation of cirrhosis combined with organ dysfunction (eg, coagulopathy, encephalopathy, kidney injury), a scenario that is frequently encountered by hospitalists outside of intensive care settings. In hypotensive patients with cirrhosis, the SCCM recommends administering albumin to a target mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or otherwise adequate perfusion. This new recommendation is conditional, based on expert consensus, and derives from low-quality evidence, with acknowledgement that “costs may be prohibitive.”⁴

While the ATTIRE study demonstrated no benefit in treating hypoalbuminemia with infusion of HA in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the 2020 SCCM guidelines, released prior to the publication of the ATTIRE study, focused on more acutely ill patients. In the ATTIRE study, only 2% to 3% of the study population was in an intensive care unit.^4,9 The use of albumin infusion in the critically ill, hypoalbuminemic, hypotensive patient is not well studied, and the SCCM acknowledges the lack of supportive evidence for this practice in their guideline statement.

The three cardinal clinical indications for human albumin in patients with cirrhosis—prevention of PICD after LVP, in SBP, and for HRS—remain supported by the literature and guidelines, with the most recent guidance adding more nuance in patient selection based on individual risk (Table). With the publication of several large-scale studies in the past few years and a 2021 update to the AASLD guidance statement, clinicians have more evidence to guide their use of HA in patients with cirrhosis. In particular, the practice of treating isolated hypoalbuminemia with HA is no longer supported by the best evidence and is potentially harmful. A professional society recommendation to preferentially use albumin as a resuscitation fluid in hypoalbuminemia was made without the benefit of the results of the 2021 ATTIRE trial. On the horizon, additional results from ongoing and upcoming studies exploring concepts of effective albumin concentration and the pleiotropic properties of HA will impact the use of this therapy in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis.

The burden of chronic liver disease (CLD) in the United States is growing, and it is currently the fourth leading cause of death in adults aged 45 to 64 years.¹ From 2012 to 2016, there were 538,720 hospitalizations in the United States for patients with cirrhosis, with almost a quarter having at least one cirrhosis-related complication. Inpatient hospitalizations for cirrhosis contribute to healthcare resource utilization, with a mean cost per CLD-related hospitalization of $16,271, and the presence of cirrhosis results in higher mortality and cost burden.¹

In hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis with ascites, intravenous human albumin (HA) infusion has been utilized for decades for a variety of indications. Current guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommends the use of albumin for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) for the prevention of kidney injury in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and for the diagnosis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).^2,3 There have been several major trials in recent years studying the use of HA for other indications in patients with cirrhosis, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) updated their guidelines in 2020 to recommend HA administration in resuscitation of critically ill patients with liver failure with hypoalbuminemia.⁴This Clinical Progress Note addresses the use of albumin in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, focusing on current indications and discussing potential uses published after the 2018 EASL guidelines. We conducted a literature search via the PubMed database. The authors began by using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms albumins/administration AND dosage; organization AND administration; adverse effects; and therapeutic use combined with liver cirrhosis as a MeSH major topic, which yielded 107 English-language articles published in the previous 10 years, and MeSH major topics of albumins and liver cirrhosis, which yielded 461 English-language articles, with 178 published in the previous 10 years. The search results were reviewed for applicability to albumin strategies for patients with cirrhosis.

There are three widely accepted and evidence-based indications for HA infusion in patients with cirrhosis, considered standard of care (Table).

Prevention of PICD

Therapeutic large-volume paracentesis (LVP) leads to a rise in plasma renin activity (PRA) centrally through several mechanisms and is not impacted by the rate of ascites removal.⁵ LVP relieves abdominal pressure, increasing venous return to the heart and cardiac output, and the corresponding drop in systemic vascular resistance with splanchnic vasodilation decreases effective circulating volume and activates the renin-angiotensin system. This PRA activation and circulatory dysfunction are associated with reaccumulating ascites, renal impairment, hypervolemic hyponatremia, and increased mortality.⁶ A large meta-analysis of 17 trials with 1225 patients found that HA infusion improves outcomes and reduces mortality for patients undergoing LVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98), reduces the risk of PICD more than other volume expanders tested, and lowers the incidence of hyponatremia.⁶ More recently, in 2017, Kütting et al⁷ analyzed 21 trials with 1277 patients and did not observe a significant mortality benefit for HA after LVP (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11). However, negative outcomes such as rise in PRA (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) and hyponatremia (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.94) were prevented. Guidelines recommend HA after LVP ≥5 L to prevent PICD, with a replacement volume of 6 to 8 g of albumin per liter of ascitic fluid removed.^2,3 Some patients may be at higher risk for PICD with less ascites removed, and the AASLD supports the use of HA to prevent PICD after smaller-volume paracentesis in patients who are already hypotensive (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) or hyponatremic (<130 mmol/L), or have acute kidney injury.³

Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is diagnosed by paracentesis, defined as ascitic neutrophil count ≥250 cells/µL with or without bacterascites (positive bacteriological culture). Bacterascites may be a precursor to the development of SBP, with the fluid neutrophil count of ≥250 determining the need for SBP treatment.² SBP can lead to circulatory dysfunction, hepatic encephalopathy, and HRS. Treating SBP with HA in addition to antibiotics reduces the risk of kidney injury compared with antibiotics alone (OR for kidney injury with antibiotics alone, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.3-16.1) and also reduces the risk of death (OR for mortality with antibiotics alone, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.0-20.9).⁸ The AASLD recommends albumin in addition to antibiotics in SBP to prevent HRS and acute kidney injury, and high-risk patients who already have kidney dysfunction (creatinine >1 mg/dL) or jaundice (total bilirubin >5 mg/dL) are more likely to benefit from albumin. The treatment schedule is 25% HA at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1 g/kg on day 3.³ The EASL recommends administering HA to all patients with cirrhosis with SBP regardless of renal or liver indices. They acknowledge, however, that the incidence of SBP-associated acute kidney injury will be low in patients without severe hepatic disease or baseline renal impairment.²

Hepatorenal Syndrome

Albumin combined with vasoconstrictors is effective in treating HRS with a response rate of 20% to 80% (average, 50%).³ Vasoactive medications can include combination midodrine and octreotide or norepinephrine (or terlipressin outside of the United States). In patients with suspected HRS, the recommended dosing of 25% HA is 1 g/kg (to a maximum of 100 g of albumin) on day 1 and then 40 to 50 g daily for at least 3 days after the diagnosis is confirmed.³ The optimal duration of therapy beyond 3 days of combined therapy with midodrine, albumin, and octreotide is not established. Terlipressin treatment is recommended for a maximum of 14 days in cases of partial response or nonresponse in renal recovery.²

Hypoalbuminemia

Albumin administration to raise serum albumin levels in hospitalized patients has been a common practice. However, new evidence suggests that treating hypoalbuminemia with infusion of HA in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis does not protect patients from risk and causes harm. The Albumin To prevenT Infection in chronic liveR (ATTIRE) trial, published in 2021, randomly assigned 777 patients across 35 centers in the United Kingdom to receive daily 20% HA to target a serum albumin level of 3.0 g/dL vs standard care, including HA for established indications.^2,3 The primary end point was a composite of infection, kidney dysfunction, and death within 3 to 15 days of initiating treatment. There were no differences in the primary end point; secondary end points of death at 28 days, 3 months, or 6 months; or duration of hospitalization. The treatment group received 10 times more albumin than the control group and reported more adverse events, including pulmonary edema.⁹

Long-Term Treatment in Patients With Ascites

The human Albumin for the treatmeNt of aScites in patients With hEpatic ciRrhosis (ANSWER) trial, published in 2018, found improved 18-month survival in patients with cirrhosis and ascites treated with diuretics who received long-term albumin. This was an open-label trial of 431 patients at 33 sites in Italy, and the treatment arm received weekly infusions of 40 g of 20% HA. They observed a 38% reduction in mortality hazard ratio and half the number of hospital days annually.¹⁰ Based on these data and those from a 2006 Italian study with similar design and results, the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF) strongly recommends long-term albumin treatment in patients with cirrhosis with ascites.¹¹ The lead author on the ANSWER trial also authored the AISF statement, although this recommendation has not been adopted by the EASL or the AASLD.

Conversely, the Midodrine and Albumin for CirrHoTic patients (MACHT) trial, also published in 2018, randomly assigned 173 patients with ascites awaiting liver transplant to receive 40 g of HA every 15 days and midodrine in addition to standard care vs placebo. MACHT found no difference in mortality or complications at 1 year.¹²

Long-term albumin therapy as a preventive measure may be a disease modifier, taking advantage of the pleiotropic effects of albumin, though the differing conclusions from ANSWER and MACHT necessitate additional trials. The ongoing PRECIOSA study in Spain is assessing dosage and schedule for this therapy.¹³

Augmenting Diuresis

Loop diuretics are highly protein-bound, and, with hypoalbuminemia, there is less effective drug delivered to the site of action. One clinical approach is to augment diuretics with concomitant HA infusion. This approach is not supported by strong evidence or guidelines.

Hyponatremia

In a retrospective cohort study of 2435 hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, 1126 of whom had hyponatremia, those patients with sodium <130 mmol/L who received HA were more likely to have resolution of hyponatremia to >135 mmol/L. This was associated with improved 30-day survival.¹⁴ From this observational data, the AASLD supports the use of albumin combined with extreme fluid restriction (<1000 mL/d) for patients with severe hyponatremia (<120 mmol/L).³

Non-SBP Infections

A 2019 meta-analysis found no evidence of a benefit of HA for bacterial infections other than SBP. However, only three trials encompassing 407 patients met the inclusion criteria.¹⁵

SCCM Guideline Update: Hypoalbuminemia and Hypotension

The 2020 SCCM Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU “suggest using albumin for resuscitation of patients [with liver failure] over other fluids, especially when serum albumin is low (<3 g/dL).” Acute-on-chronic liver failure is decompensation of cirrhosis combined with organ dysfunction (eg, coagulopathy, encephalopathy, kidney injury), a scenario that is frequently encountered by hospitalists outside of intensive care settings. In hypotensive patients with cirrhosis, the SCCM recommends administering albumin to a target mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or otherwise adequate perfusion. This new recommendation is conditional, based on expert consensus, and derives from low-quality evidence, with acknowledgement that “costs may be prohibitive.”⁴

While the ATTIRE study demonstrated no benefit in treating hypoalbuminemia with infusion of HA in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the 2020 SCCM guidelines, released prior to the publication of the ATTIRE study, focused on more acutely ill patients. In the ATTIRE study, only 2% to 3% of the study population was in an intensive care unit.^4,9 The use of albumin infusion in the critically ill, hypoalbuminemic, hypotensive patient is not well studied, and the SCCM acknowledges the lack of supportive evidence for this practice in their guideline statement.

The three cardinal clinical indications for human albumin in patients with cirrhosis—prevention of PICD after LVP, in SBP, and for HRS—remain supported by the literature and guidelines, with the most recent guidance adding more nuance in patient selection based on individual risk (Table). With the publication of several large-scale studies in the past few years and a 2021 update to the AASLD guidance statement, clinicians have more evidence to guide their use of HA in patients with cirrhosis. In particular, the practice of treating isolated hypoalbuminemia with HA is no longer supported by the best evidence and is potentially harmful. A professional society recommendation to preferentially use albumin as a resuscitation fluid in hypoalbuminemia was made without the benefit of the results of the 2021 ATTIRE trial. On the horizon, additional results from ongoing and upcoming studies exploring concepts of effective albumin concentration and the pleiotropic properties of HA will impact the use of this therapy in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis.

The burden of chronic liver disease (CLD) in the United States is growing, and it is currently the fourth leading cause of death in adults aged 45 to 64 years.¹ From 2012 to 2016, there were 538,720 hospitalizations in the United States for patients with cirrhosis, with almost a quarter having at least one cirrhosis-related complication. Inpatient hospitalizations for cirrhosis contribute to healthcare resource utilization, with a mean cost per CLD-related hospitalization of $16,271, and the presence of cirrhosis results in higher mortality and cost burden.¹

In hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis with ascites, intravenous human albumin (HA) infusion has been utilized for decades for a variety of indications. Current guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommends the use of albumin for the prevention of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction (PICD) for the prevention of kidney injury in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and for the diagnosis and treatment of hepatorenal syndrome (HRS).^2,3 There have been several major trials in recent years studying the use of HA for other indications in patients with cirrhosis, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) updated their guidelines in 2020 to recommend HA administration in resuscitation of critically ill patients with liver failure with hypoalbuminemia.⁴This Clinical Progress Note addresses the use of albumin in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, focusing on current indications and discussing potential uses published after the 2018 EASL guidelines. We conducted a literature search via the PubMed database. The authors began by using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms albumins/administration AND dosage; organization AND administration; adverse effects; and therapeutic use combined with liver cirrhosis as a MeSH major topic, which yielded 107 English-language articles published in the previous 10 years, and MeSH major topics of albumins and liver cirrhosis, which yielded 461 English-language articles, with 178 published in the previous 10 years. The search results were reviewed for applicability to albumin strategies for patients with cirrhosis.

There are three widely accepted and evidence-based indications for HA infusion in patients with cirrhosis, considered standard of care (Table).

Prevention of PICD

Therapeutic large-volume paracentesis (LVP) leads to a rise in plasma renin activity (PRA) centrally through several mechanisms and is not impacted by the rate of ascites removal.⁵ LVP relieves abdominal pressure, increasing venous return to the heart and cardiac output, and the corresponding drop in systemic vascular resistance with splanchnic vasodilation decreases effective circulating volume and activates the renin-angiotensin system. This PRA activation and circulatory dysfunction are associated with reaccumulating ascites, renal impairment, hypervolemic hyponatremia, and increased mortality.⁶ A large meta-analysis of 17 trials with 1225 patients found that HA infusion improves outcomes and reduces mortality for patients undergoing LVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98), reduces the risk of PICD more than other volume expanders tested, and lowers the incidence of hyponatremia.⁶ More recently, in 2017, Kütting et al⁷ analyzed 21 trials with 1277 patients and did not observe a significant mortality benefit for HA after LVP (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.55-1.11). However, negative outcomes such as rise in PRA (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) and hyponatremia (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.94) were prevented. Guidelines recommend HA after LVP ≥5 L to prevent PICD, with a replacement volume of 6 to 8 g of albumin per liter of ascitic fluid removed.^2,3 Some patients may be at higher risk for PICD with less ascites removed, and the AASLD supports the use of HA to prevent PICD after smaller-volume paracentesis in patients who are already hypotensive (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) or hyponatremic (<130 mmol/L), or have acute kidney injury.³

Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is diagnosed by paracentesis, defined as ascitic neutrophil count ≥250 cells/µL with or without bacterascites (positive bacteriological culture). Bacterascites may be a precursor to the development of SBP, with the fluid neutrophil count of ≥250 determining the need for SBP treatment.² SBP can lead to circulatory dysfunction, hepatic encephalopathy, and HRS. Treating SBP with HA in addition to antibiotics reduces the risk of kidney injury compared with antibiotics alone (OR for kidney injury with antibiotics alone, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.3-16.1) and also reduces the risk of death (OR for mortality with antibiotics alone, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.0-20.9).⁸ The AASLD recommends albumin in addition to antibiotics in SBP to prevent HRS and acute kidney injury, and high-risk patients who already have kidney dysfunction (creatinine >1 mg/dL) or jaundice (total bilirubin >5 mg/dL) are more likely to benefit from albumin. The treatment schedule is 25% HA at 1.5 g/kg on day 1 and 1 g/kg on day 3.³ The EASL recommends administering HA to all patients with cirrhosis with SBP regardless of renal or liver indices. They acknowledge, however, that the incidence of SBP-associated acute kidney injury will be low in patients without severe hepatic disease or baseline renal impairment.²

Hepatorenal Syndrome

Albumin combined with vasoconstrictors is effective in treating HRS with a response rate of 20% to 80% (average, 50%).³ Vasoactive medications can include combination midodrine and octreotide or norepinephrine (or terlipressin outside of the United States). In patients with suspected HRS, the recommended dosing of 25% HA is 1 g/kg (to a maximum of 100 g of albumin) on day 1 and then 40 to 50 g daily for at least 3 days after the diagnosis is confirmed.³ The optimal duration of therapy beyond 3 days of combined therapy with midodrine, albumin, and octreotide is not established. Terlipressin treatment is recommended for a maximum of 14 days in cases of partial response or nonresponse in renal recovery.²

Hypoalbuminemia

Albumin administration to raise serum albumin levels in hospitalized patients has been a common practice. However, new evidence suggests that treating hypoalbuminemia with infusion of HA in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis does not protect patients from risk and causes harm. The Albumin To prevenT Infection in chronic liveR (ATTIRE) trial, published in 2021, randomly assigned 777 patients across 35 centers in the United Kingdom to receive daily 20% HA to target a serum albumin level of 3.0 g/dL vs standard care, including HA for established indications.^2,3 The primary end point was a composite of infection, kidney dysfunction, and death within 3 to 15 days of initiating treatment. There were no differences in the primary end point; secondary end points of death at 28 days, 3 months, or 6 months; or duration of hospitalization. The treatment group received 10 times more albumin than the control group and reported more adverse events, including pulmonary edema.⁹

Long-Term Treatment in Patients With Ascites

The human Albumin for the treatmeNt of aScites in patients With hEpatic ciRrhosis (ANSWER) trial, published in 2018, found improved 18-month survival in patients with cirrhosis and ascites treated with diuretics who received long-term albumin. This was an open-label trial of 431 patients at 33 sites in Italy, and the treatment arm received weekly infusions of 40 g of 20% HA. They observed a 38% reduction in mortality hazard ratio and half the number of hospital days annually.¹⁰ Based on these data and those from a 2006 Italian study with similar design and results, the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF) strongly recommends long-term albumin treatment in patients with cirrhosis with ascites.¹¹ The lead author on the ANSWER trial also authored the AISF statement, although this recommendation has not been adopted by the EASL or the AASLD.

Conversely, the Midodrine and Albumin for CirrHoTic patients (MACHT) trial, also published in 2018, randomly assigned 173 patients with ascites awaiting liver transplant to receive 40 g of HA every 15 days and midodrine in addition to standard care vs placebo. MACHT found no difference in mortality or complications at 1 year.¹²

Long-term albumin therapy as a preventive measure may be a disease modifier, taking advantage of the pleiotropic effects of albumin, though the differing conclusions from ANSWER and MACHT necessitate additional trials. The ongoing PRECIOSA study in Spain is assessing dosage and schedule for this therapy.¹³

Augmenting Diuresis

Loop diuretics are highly protein-bound, and, with hypoalbuminemia, there is less effective drug delivered to the site of action. One clinical approach is to augment diuretics with concomitant HA infusion. This approach is not supported by strong evidence or guidelines.

Hyponatremia

In a retrospective cohort study of 2435 hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, 1126 of whom had hyponatremia, those patients with sodium <130 mmol/L who received HA were more likely to have resolution of hyponatremia to >135 mmol/L. This was associated with improved 30-day survival.¹⁴ From this observational data, the AASLD supports the use of albumin combined with extreme fluid restriction (<1000 mL/d) for patients with severe hyponatremia (<120 mmol/L).³

Non-SBP Infections

A 2019 meta-analysis found no evidence of a benefit of HA for bacterial infections other than SBP. However, only three trials encompassing 407 patients met the inclusion criteria.¹⁵

SCCM Guideline Update: Hypoalbuminemia and Hypotension

The 2020 SCCM Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU “suggest using albumin for resuscitation of patients [with liver failure] over other fluids, especially when serum albumin is low (<3 g/dL).” Acute-on-chronic liver failure is decompensation of cirrhosis combined with organ dysfunction (eg, coagulopathy, encephalopathy, kidney injury), a scenario that is frequently encountered by hospitalists outside of intensive care settings. In hypotensive patients with cirrhosis, the SCCM recommends administering albumin to a target mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or otherwise adequate perfusion. This new recommendation is conditional, based on expert consensus, and derives from low-quality evidence, with acknowledgement that “costs may be prohibitive.”⁴

While the ATTIRE study demonstrated no benefit in treating hypoalbuminemia with infusion of HA in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the 2020 SCCM guidelines, released prior to the publication of the ATTIRE study, focused on more acutely ill patients. In the ATTIRE study, only 2% to 3% of the study population was in an intensive care unit.^4,9 The use of albumin infusion in the critically ill, hypoalbuminemic, hypotensive patient is not well studied, and the SCCM acknowledges the lack of supportive evidence for this practice in their guideline statement.

The three cardinal clinical indications for human albumin in patients with cirrhosis—prevention of PICD after LVP, in SBP, and for HRS—remain supported by the literature and guidelines, with the most recent guidance adding more nuance in patient selection based on individual risk (Table). With the publication of several large-scale studies in the past few years and a 2021 update to the AASLD guidance statement, clinicians have more evidence to guide their use of HA in patients with cirrhosis. In particular, the practice of treating isolated hypoalbuminemia with HA is no longer supported by the best evidence and is potentially harmful. A professional society recommendation to preferentially use albumin as a resuscitation fluid in hypoalbuminemia was made without the benefit of the results of the 2021 ATTIRE trial. On the horizon, additional results from ongoing and upcoming studies exploring concepts of effective albumin concentration and the pleiotropic properties of HA will impact the use of this therapy in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis.

Identifying and supporting patients’ care goals through shared decision-making was named the highest priority in the Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) study.¹ Ensuring that seriously ill patients’ goals for their future care are understood and honored is particularly important for patients hospitalized with conditions known to be associated with high near-term mortality or functional disability, such as sepsis. It is increasingly recognized that a hospital admission for sepsis is associated with poor outcomes, including high rates of readmission and postdischarge mortality,^2-5 yet little is known about the assessment, status, and stability of patient care goals after discharge for sepsis. Using a cohort of high-risk sepsis survivors enrolled in a clinical trial, we aimed to determine how frequently care goals were documented, describe patterns in care goals, and evaluate how frequently care goals changed over 90 days after sepsis discharge. We also used expert reviewers to assess care delivered in the 90 days after hospitalization and determine the proportion of patients who received goal-concordant care.^6,7

Design, Setting, Participants

We conducted a secondary analysis using data from the Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis (IMPACTS) study,⁸ a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a multicomponent transition program to reduce mortality and rehospitalization after sepsis among patients enrolled from three hospitals between January 2019 and March 2020 (NCT03865602). The study intervention emphasized preference-sensitive care for patients but did not specifically require documentation of care goals in the electronic health record (EHR).

Data Collection

Clinical and outcomes data were collected from the EHR and enterprise data warehouse. We included data collected as part of routine care at IMPACTS trial enrollment (ie, age at admission, gender, race, marital status, coexisting conditions) and during index hospitalization (ie, organ failures, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition). The Charlson Comorbidity Index score was calculated from diagnosis codes captured during both inpatient and outpatient healthcare encounters in the 12 months prior to trial enrollment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event definitions⁹ were applied to measure organ failures.

Two palliative care physicians, three internal medicine physicians, and one critical care clinician retrospectively reviewed the EHR of study patients to: (1) identify whether patient care goals were documented in a standardized care alignment tool at discharge or in the subsequent 90 days; (2) categorize each patient’s care goals as focused on longevity, function, or comfort⁶ using either standardized documentation or unstructured information from the EHR; and (3) determine whether care goals changed over the first 90 days after discharge. Reviewers also classified care received over the 90-day postdischarge period as focused on longevity, function, or comfort. A random sample of 75 cases was selected for double review by a palliative care reviewer to assess interrater agreement in these assessments. Reviewers indicated whether the goal changed and, if so, what the new goal was. The data collection form is provided in the Appendix. The study was approved by the Atrium Health Institutional Review Board.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of cases with care goals documented in the standardized care alignment tool, an EHR-embedded tool prompting questions about goals for future health states, including choices among longevity-, function-, and comfort-focused goals. A secondary outcome was the proportion of cases for which a goal could be determined using all information available in the EHR, such as family meeting notes, discharge summaries, and inpatient or outpatient visit notes. We also measured the proportion of patients who received goal-concordant care, defined as agreement between reviewers’ categorizations of patients’ goals and the primary focus of the care delivered, using a well-defined approach.⁶ In this approach, reviewers first categorized the care delivered during the 90 days after hospital discharge as focused on longevity, function, or comfort using clinical documentation in each patient’s medical record. To enhance transparency of this decision process, reviewers indicated which specific treatments (eg, new medications, hospital admission, hospice enrollment) supported their categorization. Reviewers then separately categorized the patient’s primary goal over the same period. Reviewer training emphasized that classifications of goals and care delivered should be independent. Patients were considered to have received goal-concordant care if the category of care delivered matched the category of the primary care goal. For patients with changing goals, care delivered was compared with the most recent documented goal.

Analyses

We characterized distributions of care goals and care delivered and reported rates of goal-concordant care overall and by care goals. We calculated weighted kappa statistics to assess interrater reliability. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis in the full cohort to evaluate the association of standardized care goal documentation in the EHR with the dependent outcome of goal-concordant care, adjusting for other risk factors (ie, gender, race, marital status, coexisting chronic conditions, organ failures, and hospital length of stay).

Six hundred seventy-nine patients who survived to hospital discharge were included in the study; 52% of these patients were female, and 29% were Black. Median age of the cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 55-74) and median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 4 (IQR, 2-7). Study patients had a median two (IQR, 1-3) organ failures at admission and median hospital length of stay of 6 days (IQR, 4-10). One-hundred-sixty (24%) were discharged to home with health services, 145 (21%) to a skilled nursing facility, 44 (6%) to long-term acute care or other acute care hospital, and 21 (3%) to hospice. The Table shows characteristics between patients with goals documented and those without. Sepsis survivors with goals documented were older; had higher comorbidity scores, greater number of failed organs, and longer hospital length of stay; and were more frequently discharged to hospice or facility-based care settings compared with individuals without goals documented (all P < .05).

Characterization of Sepsis Survivors’ Goals

The Figure shows patterns of goal documentation and goal-concordant care in the study cohort. Care goals for sepsis survivors were documented in the standardized EHR care alignment tool at discharge for 130 (19%) patients. When reviewers used all information available in the EHR to categorize goals (73% interrater agreement; interrater reliability by weighted κ, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83), reviewers were able to categorize patients’ goals in 269 (40%) cases. Among those categorized, goals were classified as prioritizing longevity in 95 (35%), function in 141 (52%), and comfort in 33 (12%) cases.

Goals changed over the 90-day observation period for 41 (6%) patients. Of patients whose goals changed, 15 (37%) initially had a goal focused on longevity, 24 (59%) had a goal focused on function, and 2 (5%) had a goal focused on comfort. Of goals that changed, the most frequent new goal was comfort, which was documented in 33 (80%) patients.

Characterization of Goal-Concordant Care

Interrater reliability was moderate for reviewer-based determination of care delivered (73% interrater agreement; weighted κ, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78). Reviewers categorized care delivered as focused on longevity in 374 (55%), function in 290 (43%), and comfort in 13 (2%) patients, with <1% unable to be determined. Care elements most frequently cited for longevity-focused classification included intensive care unit (ICU) stay (39%) and new medications for nonsymptom benefit (29%). Care elements most frequently cited for function-focused classification included new medications for nonsymptom benefit (50%) and new medication for symptom benefit (41%). Care elements most frequently cited for comfort-focused classification included hospice enrollment (50%) and new medications for symptom benefit (48%). The rate of goal-concordant care was 68% among those with care goals determined and 27% when cases with unknown goals were classified as not concordant. Concordance was highest among those with longevity-focused (72%) and function-focused (73%) care goals compared with comfort-focused (39%) care goals (P < .01). Adjusting for other potential risk factors, completion of the standardized EHR care alignment tool was associated with higher odds of receiving goal-concordant care (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.5).

Our study identified deficits in the current delivery of goal-concordant care in the first 90 days after sepsis hospitalization. First, goals were only documented in the standardized EHR care alignment tool in one-fifth of cases. Otherwise, information about goals, values, and treatment preferences of sepsis patients was documented idiosyncratically in progress notes, which may not be apparent to clinicians involved in patients’ future care. Lack of clinician attention to documenting the goals of sepsis patients post discharge may reflect suboptimal awareness of the lasting health consequences of sepsis, including persistently elevated risk of mortality up to 2 years following the index hospitalization.^2-5 Second, even when goals could be classified by reviewers, the focus of care delivered did not match patients’ goals in nearly one-third of cases.

Our findings inspire several considerations for postsepsis care during hospitalization or in the peridischarge period. First, efforts should focus on increasing assessment and documentation of sepsis survivors’ goals—this might begin with enhanced education about the lasting health consequences after sepsis and communication skills training. Importantly, sepsis survivors’ goals were relatively stable over 90 days after discharge, suggesting that hospitalization for sepsis represents an important opportunity to assess and document patients’ goals. Improving documentation of care goals explicitly in a standardized EHR tool may be an important target for quality-improvement initiatives, as this practice was associated with higher odds of receiving goal-concordant care in our cohort. Second, our findings that one-third of patients received care that was not consistent with their goals is worrisome. Concordance was lowest among comfort-focused care goals, suggesting that some of the high rates of healthcare utilization after sepsis may be unwanted.^10-12 For example, ICU stay and new medication for nonsymptom benefit were commonly cited as indications of longevity-focused care among patients with comfort-focused goals. Thus, improving the alignment between sepsis survivors’ goals and subsequent care received is an important target from both a patient-centered and value perspective. Consistent with the recommendations of the i-HOPE study,¹ future interventions designed to improve posthospitalization care of sepsis patients should aim to capture goal-concordant care as a patient-centered outcome, if possible.

Our examination of goals and goal-concordant care after sepsis hospitalization advances the goal of enhancing understanding of survivorship in this population.⁴ Strengths of this study include the large, real-world sample and use of expert palliative care physicians conducting granular EHR review to assess goal-concordant care. Our utilization of this methodology to evaluate goal-concordant care provides information to refine efforts toward developing reliable measures of this important outcome—for example, interrater reliability was similar among reviewers in our study compared with studies assessing goal-concordant care using similar methodology.¹³

Limitations include potential generalizability challenges for goal and goal-concordant care assessments in other health systems with different EHR platforms or local documentation practices, although deficits in EHR documentation of care goals have been reported in other settings.^14,15 We double-reviewed a sample of cases to evaluate interrater reliability, but double-review of all cases with a discussion and adjudication approach may have increased the number of goals that could ultimately be classified. However, this might overestimate the number of goals that are identifiable in real-world practice by a treating clinician. Finally, reviewers may have been challenged to select one goal when two or more competing goals existed. Future refinements of goal-concordant care measurement will need to define methods for handling tradeoffs and prioritization associated with competing goals.

The hospitalization and peridischarge periods represent an important opportunity to address deficits in the documentation of goals and provision of goal-concordant care for sepsis survivors. Doing so may improve patient-centered care and reduce the high rates of healthcare utilization after sepsis.

Identifying and supporting patients’ care goals through shared decision-making was named the highest priority in the Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) study.¹ Ensuring that seriously ill patients’ goals for their future care are understood and honored is particularly important for patients hospitalized with conditions known to be associated with high near-term mortality or functional disability, such as sepsis. It is increasingly recognized that a hospital admission for sepsis is associated with poor outcomes, including high rates of readmission and postdischarge mortality,^2-5 yet little is known about the assessment, status, and stability of patient care goals after discharge for sepsis. Using a cohort of high-risk sepsis survivors enrolled in a clinical trial, we aimed to determine how frequently care goals were documented, describe patterns in care goals, and evaluate how frequently care goals changed over 90 days after sepsis discharge. We also used expert reviewers to assess care delivered in the 90 days after hospitalization and determine the proportion of patients who received goal-concordant care.^6,7

Design, Setting, Participants

We conducted a secondary analysis using data from the Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis (IMPACTS) study,⁸ a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a multicomponent transition program to reduce mortality and rehospitalization after sepsis among patients enrolled from three hospitals between January 2019 and March 2020 (NCT03865602). The study intervention emphasized preference-sensitive care for patients but did not specifically require documentation of care goals in the electronic health record (EHR).

Data Collection

Clinical and outcomes data were collected from the EHR and enterprise data warehouse. We included data collected as part of routine care at IMPACTS trial enrollment (ie, age at admission, gender, race, marital status, coexisting conditions) and during index hospitalization (ie, organ failures, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition). The Charlson Comorbidity Index score was calculated from diagnosis codes captured during both inpatient and outpatient healthcare encounters in the 12 months prior to trial enrollment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event definitions⁹ were applied to measure organ failures.

Two palliative care physicians, three internal medicine physicians, and one critical care clinician retrospectively reviewed the EHR of study patients to: (1) identify whether patient care goals were documented in a standardized care alignment tool at discharge or in the subsequent 90 days; (2) categorize each patient’s care goals as focused on longevity, function, or comfort⁶ using either standardized documentation or unstructured information from the EHR; and (3) determine whether care goals changed over the first 90 days after discharge. Reviewers also classified care received over the 90-day postdischarge period as focused on longevity, function, or comfort. A random sample of 75 cases was selected for double review by a palliative care reviewer to assess interrater agreement in these assessments. Reviewers indicated whether the goal changed and, if so, what the new goal was. The data collection form is provided in the Appendix. The study was approved by the Atrium Health Institutional Review Board.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of cases with care goals documented in the standardized care alignment tool, an EHR-embedded tool prompting questions about goals for future health states, including choices among longevity-, function-, and comfort-focused goals. A secondary outcome was the proportion of cases for which a goal could be determined using all information available in the EHR, such as family meeting notes, discharge summaries, and inpatient or outpatient visit notes. We also measured the proportion of patients who received goal-concordant care, defined as agreement between reviewers’ categorizations of patients’ goals and the primary focus of the care delivered, using a well-defined approach.⁶ In this approach, reviewers first categorized the care delivered during the 90 days after hospital discharge as focused on longevity, function, or comfort using clinical documentation in each patient’s medical record. To enhance transparency of this decision process, reviewers indicated which specific treatments (eg, new medications, hospital admission, hospice enrollment) supported their categorization. Reviewers then separately categorized the patient’s primary goal over the same period. Reviewer training emphasized that classifications of goals and care delivered should be independent. Patients were considered to have received goal-concordant care if the category of care delivered matched the category of the primary care goal. For patients with changing goals, care delivered was compared with the most recent documented goal.

Analyses

We characterized distributions of care goals and care delivered and reported rates of goal-concordant care overall and by care goals. We calculated weighted kappa statistics to assess interrater reliability. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis in the full cohort to evaluate the association of standardized care goal documentation in the EHR with the dependent outcome of goal-concordant care, adjusting for other risk factors (ie, gender, race, marital status, coexisting chronic conditions, organ failures, and hospital length of stay).

Six hundred seventy-nine patients who survived to hospital discharge were included in the study; 52% of these patients were female, and 29% were Black. Median age of the cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 55-74) and median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 4 (IQR, 2-7). Study patients had a median two (IQR, 1-3) organ failures at admission and median hospital length of stay of 6 days (IQR, 4-10). One-hundred-sixty (24%) were discharged to home with health services, 145 (21%) to a skilled nursing facility, 44 (6%) to long-term acute care or other acute care hospital, and 21 (3%) to hospice. The Table shows characteristics between patients with goals documented and those without. Sepsis survivors with goals documented were older; had higher comorbidity scores, greater number of failed organs, and longer hospital length of stay; and were more frequently discharged to hospice or facility-based care settings compared with individuals without goals documented (all P < .05).

Characterization of Sepsis Survivors’ Goals

The Figure shows patterns of goal documentation and goal-concordant care in the study cohort. Care goals for sepsis survivors were documented in the standardized EHR care alignment tool at discharge for 130 (19%) patients. When reviewers used all information available in the EHR to categorize goals (73% interrater agreement; interrater reliability by weighted κ, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83), reviewers were able to categorize patients’ goals in 269 (40%) cases. Among those categorized, goals were classified as prioritizing longevity in 95 (35%), function in 141 (52%), and comfort in 33 (12%) cases.

Goals changed over the 90-day observation period for 41 (6%) patients. Of patients whose goals changed, 15 (37%) initially had a goal focused on longevity, 24 (59%) had a goal focused on function, and 2 (5%) had a goal focused on comfort. Of goals that changed, the most frequent new goal was comfort, which was documented in 33 (80%) patients.

Characterization of Goal-Concordant Care

Interrater reliability was moderate for reviewer-based determination of care delivered (73% interrater agreement; weighted κ, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78). Reviewers categorized care delivered as focused on longevity in 374 (55%), function in 290 (43%), and comfort in 13 (2%) patients, with <1% unable to be determined. Care elements most frequently cited for longevity-focused classification included intensive care unit (ICU) stay (39%) and new medications for nonsymptom benefit (29%). Care elements most frequently cited for function-focused classification included new medications for nonsymptom benefit (50%) and new medication for symptom benefit (41%). Care elements most frequently cited for comfort-focused classification included hospice enrollment (50%) and new medications for symptom benefit (48%). The rate of goal-concordant care was 68% among those with care goals determined and 27% when cases with unknown goals were classified as not concordant. Concordance was highest among those with longevity-focused (72%) and function-focused (73%) care goals compared with comfort-focused (39%) care goals (P < .01). Adjusting for other potential risk factors, completion of the standardized EHR care alignment tool was associated with higher odds of receiving goal-concordant care (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.5).

Our study identified deficits in the current delivery of goal-concordant care in the first 90 days after sepsis hospitalization. First, goals were only documented in the standardized EHR care alignment tool in one-fifth of cases. Otherwise, information about goals, values, and treatment preferences of sepsis patients was documented idiosyncratically in progress notes, which may not be apparent to clinicians involved in patients’ future care. Lack of clinician attention to documenting the goals of sepsis patients post discharge may reflect suboptimal awareness of the lasting health consequences of sepsis, including persistently elevated risk of mortality up to 2 years following the index hospitalization.^2-5 Second, even when goals could be classified by reviewers, the focus of care delivered did not match patients’ goals in nearly one-third of cases.

Our findings inspire several considerations for postsepsis care during hospitalization or in the peridischarge period. First, efforts should focus on increasing assessment and documentation of sepsis survivors’ goals—this might begin with enhanced education about the lasting health consequences after sepsis and communication skills training. Importantly, sepsis survivors’ goals were relatively stable over 90 days after discharge, suggesting that hospitalization for sepsis represents an important opportunity to assess and document patients’ goals. Improving documentation of care goals explicitly in a standardized EHR tool may be an important target for quality-improvement initiatives, as this practice was associated with higher odds of receiving goal-concordant care in our cohort. Second, our findings that one-third of patients received care that was not consistent with their goals is worrisome. Concordance was lowest among comfort-focused care goals, suggesting that some of the high rates of healthcare utilization after sepsis may be unwanted.^10-12 For example, ICU stay and new medication for nonsymptom benefit were commonly cited as indications of longevity-focused care among patients with comfort-focused goals. Thus, improving the alignment between sepsis survivors’ goals and subsequent care received is an important target from both a patient-centered and value perspective. Consistent with the recommendations of the i-HOPE study,¹ future interventions designed to improve posthospitalization care of sepsis patients should aim to capture goal-concordant care as a patient-centered outcome, if possible.

Our examination of goals and goal-concordant care after sepsis hospitalization advances the goal of enhancing understanding of survivorship in this population.⁴ Strengths of this study include the large, real-world sample and use of expert palliative care physicians conducting granular EHR review to assess goal-concordant care. Our utilization of this methodology to evaluate goal-concordant care provides information to refine efforts toward developing reliable measures of this important outcome—for example, interrater reliability was similar among reviewers in our study compared with studies assessing goal-concordant care using similar methodology.¹³

Limitations include potential generalizability challenges for goal and goal-concordant care assessments in other health systems with different EHR platforms or local documentation practices, although deficits in EHR documentation of care goals have been reported in other settings.^14,15 We double-reviewed a sample of cases to evaluate interrater reliability, but double-review of all cases with a discussion and adjudication approach may have increased the number of goals that could ultimately be classified. However, this might overestimate the number of goals that are identifiable in real-world practice by a treating clinician. Finally, reviewers may have been challenged to select one goal when two or more competing goals existed. Future refinements of goal-concordant care measurement will need to define methods for handling tradeoffs and prioritization associated with competing goals.

The hospitalization and peridischarge periods represent an important opportunity to address deficits in the documentation of goals and provision of goal-concordant care for sepsis survivors. Doing so may improve patient-centered care and reduce the high rates of healthcare utilization after sepsis.

Identifying and supporting patients’ care goals through shared decision-making was named the highest priority in the Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) study.¹ Ensuring that seriously ill patients’ goals for their future care are understood and honored is particularly important for patients hospitalized with conditions known to be associated with high near-term mortality or functional disability, such as sepsis. It is increasingly recognized that a hospital admission for sepsis is associated with poor outcomes, including high rates of readmission and postdischarge mortality,^2-5 yet little is known about the assessment, status, and stability of patient care goals after discharge for sepsis. Using a cohort of high-risk sepsis survivors enrolled in a clinical trial, we aimed to determine how frequently care goals were documented, describe patterns in care goals, and evaluate how frequently care goals changed over 90 days after sepsis discharge. We also used expert reviewers to assess care delivered in the 90 days after hospitalization and determine the proportion of patients who received goal-concordant care.^6,7

Design, Setting, Participants

We conducted a secondary analysis using data from the Improving Morbidity During Post-Acute Care Transitions for Sepsis (IMPACTS) study,⁸ a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a multicomponent transition program to reduce mortality and rehospitalization after sepsis among patients enrolled from three hospitals between January 2019 and March 2020 (NCT03865602). The study intervention emphasized preference-sensitive care for patients but did not specifically require documentation of care goals in the electronic health record (EHR).

Data Collection

Clinical and outcomes data were collected from the EHR and enterprise data warehouse. We included data collected as part of routine care at IMPACTS trial enrollment (ie, age at admission, gender, race, marital status, coexisting conditions) and during index hospitalization (ie, organ failures, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition). The Charlson Comorbidity Index score was calculated from diagnosis codes captured during both inpatient and outpatient healthcare encounters in the 12 months prior to trial enrollment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event definitions⁹ were applied to measure organ failures.

Two palliative care physicians, three internal medicine physicians, and one critical care clinician retrospectively reviewed the EHR of study patients to: (1) identify whether patient care goals were documented in a standardized care alignment tool at discharge or in the subsequent 90 days; (2) categorize each patient’s care goals as focused on longevity, function, or comfort⁶ using either standardized documentation or unstructured information from the EHR; and (3) determine whether care goals changed over the first 90 days after discharge. Reviewers also classified care received over the 90-day postdischarge period as focused on longevity, function, or comfort. A random sample of 75 cases was selected for double review by a palliative care reviewer to assess interrater agreement in these assessments. Reviewers indicated whether the goal changed and, if so, what the new goal was. The data collection form is provided in the Appendix. The study was approved by the Atrium Health Institutional Review Board.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of cases with care goals documented in the standardized care alignment tool, an EHR-embedded tool prompting questions about goals for future health states, including choices among longevity-, function-, and comfort-focused goals. A secondary outcome was the proportion of cases for which a goal could be determined using all information available in the EHR, such as family meeting notes, discharge summaries, and inpatient or outpatient visit notes. We also measured the proportion of patients who received goal-concordant care, defined as agreement between reviewers’ categorizations of patients’ goals and the primary focus of the care delivered, using a well-defined approach.⁶ In this approach, reviewers first categorized the care delivered during the 90 days after hospital discharge as focused on longevity, function, or comfort using clinical documentation in each patient’s medical record. To enhance transparency of this decision process, reviewers indicated which specific treatments (eg, new medications, hospital admission, hospice enrollment) supported their categorization. Reviewers then separately categorized the patient’s primary goal over the same period. Reviewer training emphasized that classifications of goals and care delivered should be independent. Patients were considered to have received goal-concordant care if the category of care delivered matched the category of the primary care goal. For patients with changing goals, care delivered was compared with the most recent documented goal.

Analyses

We characterized distributions of care goals and care delivered and reported rates of goal-concordant care overall and by care goals. We calculated weighted kappa statistics to assess interrater reliability. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis in the full cohort to evaluate the association of standardized care goal documentation in the EHR with the dependent outcome of goal-concordant care, adjusting for other risk factors (ie, gender, race, marital status, coexisting chronic conditions, organ failures, and hospital length of stay).

Six hundred seventy-nine patients who survived to hospital discharge were included in the study; 52% of these patients were female, and 29% were Black. Median age of the cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 55-74) and median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 4 (IQR, 2-7). Study patients had a median two (IQR, 1-3) organ failures at admission and median hospital length of stay of 6 days (IQR, 4-10). One-hundred-sixty (24%) were discharged to home with health services, 145 (21%) to a skilled nursing facility, 44 (6%) to long-term acute care or other acute care hospital, and 21 (3%) to hospice. The Table shows characteristics between patients with goals documented and those without. Sepsis survivors with goals documented were older; had higher comorbidity scores, greater number of failed organs, and longer hospital length of stay; and were more frequently discharged to hospice or facility-based care settings compared with individuals without goals documented (all P < .05).

Characterization of Sepsis Survivors’ Goals

The Figure shows patterns of goal documentation and goal-concordant care in the study cohort. Care goals for sepsis survivors were documented in the standardized EHR care alignment tool at discharge for 130 (19%) patients. When reviewers used all information available in the EHR to categorize goals (73% interrater agreement; interrater reliability by weighted κ, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83), reviewers were able to categorize patients’ goals in 269 (40%) cases. Among those categorized, goals were classified as prioritizing longevity in 95 (35%), function in 141 (52%), and comfort in 33 (12%) cases.

Goals changed over the 90-day observation period for 41 (6%) patients. Of patients whose goals changed, 15 (37%) initially had a goal focused on longevity, 24 (59%) had a goal focused on function, and 2 (5%) had a goal focused on comfort. Of goals that changed, the most frequent new goal was comfort, which was documented in 33 (80%) patients.

Characterization of Goal-Concordant Care

Interrater reliability was moderate for reviewer-based determination of care delivered (73% interrater agreement; weighted κ, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78). Reviewers categorized care delivered as focused on longevity in 374 (55%), function in 290 (43%), and comfort in 13 (2%) patients, with <1% unable to be determined. Care elements most frequently cited for longevity-focused classification included intensive care unit (ICU) stay (39%) and new medications for nonsymptom benefit (29%). Care elements most frequently cited for function-focused classification included new medications for nonsymptom benefit (50%) and new medication for symptom benefit (41%). Care elements most frequently cited for comfort-focused classification included hospice enrollment (50%) and new medications for symptom benefit (48%). The rate of goal-concordant care was 68% among those with care goals determined and 27% when cases with unknown goals were classified as not concordant. Concordance was highest among those with longevity-focused (72%) and function-focused (73%) care goals compared with comfort-focused (39%) care goals (P < .01). Adjusting for other potential risk factors, completion of the standardized EHR care alignment tool was associated with higher odds of receiving goal-concordant care (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.5).

Our study identified deficits in the current delivery of goal-concordant care in the first 90 days after sepsis hospitalization. First, goals were only documented in the standardized EHR care alignment tool in one-fifth of cases. Otherwise, information about goals, values, and treatment preferences of sepsis patients was documented idiosyncratically in progress notes, which may not be apparent to clinicians involved in patients’ future care. Lack of clinician attention to documenting the goals of sepsis patients post discharge may reflect suboptimal awareness of the lasting health consequences of sepsis, including persistently elevated risk of mortality up to 2 years following the index hospitalization.^2-5 Second, even when goals could be classified by reviewers, the focus of care delivered did not match patients’ goals in nearly one-third of cases.

Our findings inspire several considerations for postsepsis care during hospitalization or in the peridischarge period. First, efforts should focus on increasing assessment and documentation of sepsis survivors’ goals—this might begin with enhanced education about the lasting health consequences after sepsis and communication skills training. Importantly, sepsis survivors’ goals were relatively stable over 90 days after discharge, suggesting that hospitalization for sepsis represents an important opportunity to assess and document patients’ goals. Improving documentation of care goals explicitly in a standardized EHR tool may be an important target for quality-improvement initiatives, as this practice was associated with higher odds of receiving goal-concordant care in our cohort. Second, our findings that one-third of patients received care that was not consistent with their goals is worrisome. Concordance was lowest among comfort-focused care goals, suggesting that some of the high rates of healthcare utilization after sepsis may be unwanted.^10-12 For example, ICU stay and new medication for nonsymptom benefit were commonly cited as indications of longevity-focused care among patients with comfort-focused goals. Thus, improving the alignment between sepsis survivors’ goals and subsequent care received is an important target from both a patient-centered and value perspective. Consistent with the recommendations of the i-HOPE study,¹ future interventions designed to improve posthospitalization care of sepsis patients should aim to capture goal-concordant care as a patient-centered outcome, if possible.

Our examination of goals and goal-concordant care after sepsis hospitalization advances the goal of enhancing understanding of survivorship in this population.⁴ Strengths of this study include the large, real-world sample and use of expert palliative care physicians conducting granular EHR review to assess goal-concordant care. Our utilization of this methodology to evaluate goal-concordant care provides information to refine efforts toward developing reliable measures of this important outcome—for example, interrater reliability was similar among reviewers in our study compared with studies assessing goal-concordant care using similar methodology.¹³

Limitations include potential generalizability challenges for goal and goal-concordant care assessments in other health systems with different EHR platforms or local documentation practices, although deficits in EHR documentation of care goals have been reported in other settings.^14,15 We double-reviewed a sample of cases to evaluate interrater reliability, but double-review of all cases with a discussion and adjudication approach may have increased the number of goals that could ultimately be classified. However, this might overestimate the number of goals that are identifiable in real-world practice by a treating clinician. Finally, reviewers may have been challenged to select one goal when two or more competing goals existed. Future refinements of goal-concordant care measurement will need to define methods for handling tradeoffs and prioritization associated with competing goals.

The hospitalization and peridischarge periods represent an important opportunity to address deficits in the documentation of goals and provision of goal-concordant care for sepsis survivors. Doing so may improve patient-centered care and reduce the high rates of healthcare utilization after sepsis.

The rate of inpatient admissions among adults aged 65 years and older has decreased by approximately 25% since 2000.^1,2 This long-term trend raises important questions about inpatient-related spending in the traditional Medicare program for hospitals and providers who treat beneficiaries after a hospitalization. As traditional Medicare’s most expensive sector (accounting for 21% of all Medicare spending³), reducing hospitalizations is often championed as an opportunity to moderate Medicare spending growth.

Medicare’s ability to achieve significant savings from declining inpatient use may be tempered by a shift toward more expensive hospitalizations. If marginal hospitalizations among healthier beneficiaries are avoided, then the remaining inpatient users may be sicker and have greater spending per hospitalization and greater need for follow-up services. This study examines trends in Medicare spending related to episodes initiated by an inpatient stay because of its importance to overall Medicare spending and the implications for several Medicare value-based payment initiatives. In care models seeking to contain spending at a population level, such as accountable care organizations and managed care plans, reducing inpatient use and associated services may have the largest impact in curbing overall spending growth per beneficiary. Other models focused on spending at an episode level, including bundled payment initiatives, may face challenges if inpatient episodes become more expensive over time.

As Medicare shifts toward value-based payments, hospitalists and other hospital leaders are often involved in redesigning care delivery models for the hospital or accountable care organization (eg, through readmission reduction initiatives, post–acute care coordination, and bundled-care delivery programs). Not all savings strategies rely on providers to change how services are delivered; Medicare can modify payment rates, such as Affordable Care Act provisions that slowed how quickly Medicare payment rates increased.⁴ For clinicians to navigate the shift toward new payment models, it is important to recognize how each of these elements—declining hospital admissions, spending per inpatient episode, and payment rates—affect spending trends for inpatient services and associated care. Previous articles on overall Medicare inpatient spending have examined inpatient stays alone⁵ or focused mainly on spending per episode^6,7 without quantifying how these elements contributed to overall episode-related Medicare spending per beneficiary. This article addresses this gap by demonstrating how inpatient-related spending trends reflect each component.

This study examined trends in Medicare’s spending on inpatient episodes during the years 2009 to 2017. We described changes in the volume and spending on inpatient-initiated episodes across several dimensions, including beneficiary-level and hospitalization-level factors. We examined whether declines in spending associated with fewer inpatient-initiated episodes have been offset by increased spending per episode and how spending would have differed without changes in Medicare payment rates.

Episode Definition

We constructed an episode measure that captured traditional Medicare spending for 30 days prior to hospital admission, hospitalization duration, and 90 days following hospital discharge (additional details in the Appendix). As with bundled payments that include pre- and postdischarge services, this window allowed us to observe any services that preceded or followed a hospitalization. Using Medicare Part A, B, and D claims data for the years 2008 to 2018, we captured spending across all sectors for episodes with an index hospital admission in the years 2009 to 2017. If a beneficiary died during an episode, we measured healthcare spending until death. We excluded episodes where beneficiaries did not have traditional Medicare Part A and B for the entire episode or lived outside the 50 states or Washington, DC.

Any acute hospitalization triggered a new episode, with one exception: if a beneficiary was discharged and readmitted within 90 days for the same diagnosis-related group (DRG), then the readmission did not trigger a new episode. The spending for that readmission was attributed to the prior hospital stay. In effect, the annual number of episodes is equivalent to the annual number of hospital admissions minus subsequent rehospitalizations for the same DRG. Neither observation stays nor hospitalizations in inpatient rehabilitation, psychiatric, or long-term facilities were considered acute hospital admissions.

We assigned claims from noninpatient sectors to an episode based on whether the claim start date fell within the episode window. All traditional Medicare sectors were measured, including outpatient services, physician claims, post–acute care services, and Medicare Part D prescription drug events.

Our analysis aimed to measure all spending related to inpatient episodes without double-counting spending for overlapping episodes. If episodes overlapped, then spending for overlapping days was weighted to be evenly divided across episodes.

Outcome Measures

The study’s main outcomes summarized episode trends across the entire traditional Medicare population, including beneficiaries without an episode, in annual mean number of episodes per beneficiary and annual mean episode-related spending per beneficiary. The denominator of these measures is person-years, or total number of beneficiary months with Medicare Part A and B coverage divided by 12. The annual mean number of episodes per beneficiary is the total number of episodes initiated in a calendar year divided by person-years. The annual mean episode-related spending per beneficiary is the total amount of spending attributed to episodes divided by person-years. We also measured annual mean spending per episode, or total amount of spending attributed to episodes divided by the total number of episodes.

Medicare annually updates each sector’s payment rates for several factors, including inflation. We constructed an index for each sector to adjust for these annual payment rate changes. We also accounted for sequestration measures in effect since April 2013 that reduced Medicare payments to all sectors by 2%. We report our spending measures twice, with and without adjusting for changes in payment rates. Adjusted numbers reflect payment rates in effect in 2015.

Analysis Approach

We present annual trends on changes in the number of inpatient episodes per beneficiary, mean episode-related spending per beneficiary, and mean spending per episode. To quantify how changes in episode-related spending per beneficiary reflect changes in the number of episodes per beneficiary vs changes in spending per episode, we modified an approach implemented by Rosen and colleagues.⁸We calculated how much episode-related spending per beneficiary would have changed between 2009 and 2017 if spending per episode remained at 2009 levels but the number of episodes per beneficiary declined, as observed between 2009 and 2017 (see example calculation in Appendix). Conversely, we estimated how much episode-related spending per beneficiary would have changed if the number of episodes per beneficiary remained at 2009 levels but spending per episode increased, as observed between 2009 and 2017. In reality, the number of episodes per beneficiary and spending per episode concurrently changed, so the decomposition also includes an interaction term that quantifies how much of the change in spending reflects changes in both factors. We present these estimates for all sectors and separately for inpatient and all other sectors.

To better understand which beneficiaries have declining inpatient use, we performed stratified analyses describing changes in the number of episodes per beneficiary between 2009 and 2017, spending per episode, and total episode-related spending per beneficiary. We report these measures for several subpopulations defined by age, sex, race, dual-eligible status, and whether the beneficiary used long-term nursing home services during the episode’s calendar year. Descriptive statistics also detail how these measures changed between 2009 and 2017 for episodes stratified by characteristics of the index hospital stay: planned vs unplanned, medical vs surgical, and any use of intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit services. We also stratify study measures by whether an episode included any use of post–acute care services (skilled nursing facility, home health, or inpatient rehabilitation facility use). Finally, we aggregate the episodes into major diagnostic categories (MDCs) based on the index hospital stay’s DRG to report study outcomes by condition. Because of a shift in coding hospitalizations for pneumonia as sepsis,^9,10 we exclude these two diseases from their respective MDCs and analyze them jointly as a unique category.

Changes in Number of Inpatient Episodes and Related Spending

From 2009 to 2017, the number of inpatient episodes per 1000 traditional Medicare beneficiaries declined from 326 to 267 (Table 1), or a relative decline of 18.2% (Figure 1). The total volume of inpatient episodes declined by only 13.4%, from 10.2 million to 8.8 million, reflecting that the size of the traditional Medicare population grew during these years. Over the same years, mean payment-rate–adjusted spending per episode increased 11.4% from $20,891 to $23,273.

When considering overall episode-related spending, the large decline in the volume of episodes outweighed increased spending per episode: the mean amount of episode-related Medicare spending per beneficiary decreased 8.9% from $6810 to $6206 (Table 1), or a net change of $604 (Figure 2). This net change reflects decreased spending due to fewer episodes per beneficiary ($1239 reduction in episode-related spending) offset by increased spending per episode (translating to a $776 increase in episode-related spending per beneficiary). These two factors, plus their interaction reflecting the combined influence of these factors ($141), comprise the overall change in episode-related spending per beneficiary over this period.

When these estimates are calculated separately for the inpatient sector and all other sectors, the inpatient sector experienced small increases in spending associated with greater spending per episode ($304) compared with noninpatient sectors ($472). Accordingly, the inpatient sector had a larger net decline in episode-related spending per beneficiary ($420) than noninpatient sectors ($184) after taking into account declining episode volume.

As expected, episode-related spending increased more when measures were not adjusted for annual payment rate increases. Without such adjustment, mean spending per episode increased 25.5%, and episode-related spending per beneficiary was nearly flat (2.6% between 2009 and 2017 [Figure 1]). The decline in unadjusted spending associated with fewer episodes ($1138) was offset by the spending increase associated with higher spending per episode ($1592) (Figure 2).

Analyses Stratified by Beneficiary Characteristics

Every population examined had declines in the number of inpatient episodes, even beneficiaries with more frequent inpatient use (Table 2). Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 85 years and older, the mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries declined by 12.7%, from 524 to 457. Populations with less frequent inpatient use often experienced larger relative declines in number of episodes than populations with more frequent inpatient use. For example, the mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries decreased by 17.7% for beneficiaries without nursing home use (306 to 252), as compared with an 8.1% decline for beneficiaries with nursing home use (from 888 to 816). In contrast, populations with less frequent inpatient use had larger relative increases in spending per episode with adjustment for payment rate changes. For example, spending per episode increased by 13.1% for beneficiaries aged 65 to 74 years ($20,904 to $23,644), but only by 8.6% for beneficiaries 85 years and older ($20,384 to $22,138).

Analyses Stratified by Service Use Characteristics

Some types of inpatient episodes had larger declines in the number of episodes, including episodes with planned admissions for the index hospital stay (28.8% decline from 68 to 48 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries) and episodes without post–acute care use (23.9% decline from 169 to 129 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries) (Appendix Table). In contrast, declines in the number of episodes were similar for index hospital admissions that did or did not involve ICU use (17.8% and 18.3% reduction in mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively) or that included a surgical procedure or not (17.1% versus 18.6%, respectively). Several types of inpatient episodes had larger increases in spending per episode, such as a 15.1% increase for planned admissions and a 13.2% increase for hospitalizations without ICU use.

According to diagnosis information for an episode’s index hospital stay, inpatient episodes related to conditions affecting the circulatory system had the largest decline in mean number of episodes, decreasing by 31.8% from 78 to 53 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries (Appendix Table). Episodes for other diseases had much smaller declines in volume. Admissions for diagnoses of pneumonia or sepsis had notable increases in the volume of episodes, increasing by 20.7% from 25 to 30 admissions per 1000 beneficiaries.

Medicare spending per beneficiary on inpatient episodes, including services provided pre- and post hospitalization, declined by 8.9% from 2009 to 2017 after adjusting for payment rate changes. This decline reflects two components. First, the number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries declined by 18.2%. Although the extent of this decrease varied across populations, every group examined had declines in inpatient use. In particular, hospitalizations for conditions affecting the circulatory system, such as heart attacks and cardiac procedures, decreased. Second, as inpatient volume declined, spending per episode increased by 11.4% to an average of $23,273 in 2017. This increase in spending per episode offset how much overall Medicare spending on episode-related care declined.

Medicare is increasingly challenging hospitals to demonstrate the value of inpatient services and associated treatment, which requires hospital leaders to recognize how their facilities’ spending trends relate to these national patterns. Understanding how much national episode-related spending has decreased over time with declining inpatient volume can help an accountable care organization evaluate whether it is feasible to achieve significant savings by reducing hospitalizations. Bundled payment providers focused on managing spending per episode can benefit from identifying which types of hospitalizations have increased spending per episode, especially for certain diagnoses.

These results also highlight the continued importance of a perennial factor in Medicare spending: payment rates. If Medicare payment rates had not increased over our study period, Medicare spending per inpatient episode would have increased by only 11%. Actual Medicare spending per episode increased by 25%, demonstrating that over half of the relative increase in spending per episode reflected increases in Medicare’s payment rates.

Increased spending per episode, even after adjustment for payment rate changes, suggests that services provided during an episode have increased in intensity or shifted toward higher-cost treatments. In order to understand how Medicare episode-related spending changed without introducing assumptions about factors underlying that change, our analysis did not adjust for inpatient acuity. We observed a smaller decline in the volume of hospitalizations with post–acute care use but similar decreases in the volume of hospitalizations with and without ICU use. This finding is consistent with previous evidence suggesting inpatient acuity has increased, with some caveats. The case-mix index for inpatients increased in Medicare claims,¹¹ but some of this increase may reflect expanded opportunities for hospitals to document comorbidities.¹² Geographic areas with larger decreases in inpatient admissions between 2010 and 2013 experienced greater risk-adjusted mortality among inpatients, consistent with a higher level of acuity among inpatients.¹³ The volume of ICU admissions declined, but ICU patients were more likely to have organ failure and to use complex services, such as mechanical ventilation, than patients admitted in earlier years.¹⁴

When interpreting these trends, several points are notable. The underlying health of the Medicare population may contribute to declining inpatient use but is difficult to quantify. The observed decline in cardiac-related hospitalizations is consistent with evidence that the impact of ischemic heart disease, the leading source of disease or injury in the US population, has dramatically declined over recent decades¹⁵ and that the Medicare program has experienced large declines in overall spending and use related to cardiac conditions.^16-18

Other potential factors include a shift toward hospitals treating Medicare beneficiaries as outpatients during an observation stay instead of admitting them as inpatients. Observation stays have increased as traditional Medicare implemented measures to penalize readmissions and limit payments for short inpatient stays.^19-21 Even so, the increase in observation stays would have to be at least three times as large as described in other work to fully substitute for the decrease in inpatient stays: between the years 2007 and 2018, the number of observation stays per 1000 beneficiaries increased by only 26 stays, whereas the number of hospitalizations per 1000 beneficiaries decreased by 83 hospitalizations.²⁰

Outpatient services may also broaden treatment availability in alternative settings or enable beneficiaries to avoid inpatient treatment with appropriate preventative care.^22-27 These considerations are even more relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic spurred reduced admissions and shifted acute services outside of hospitals.^28,29 Some services, such as elective surgeries, have probably shifted from an inpatient to an outpatient setting, which would be consistent with our finding that there are larger relative declines in planned hospitalizations. Although this analysis does not capture spending for outpatient services that are not linked to an inpatient admission, prior work demonstrates that annual growth in total Medicare spending per beneficiary (episode related or not) has recently declined for the inpatient sector but increased for outpatient and physician sectors.³⁰ By offering other outpatient services, hospitals may be able to recoup some declining inpatient revenues. However, outpatient services are reimbursed at a lower rate than inpatient services, suggesting these trends may create financial pressure for hospitals.

There are several limitations to our analysis. First, our analysis is not designed to uncover the reason for the shift away from inpatient services nor to analyze how it has affected beneficiaries’ overall quality of care. Second, in accounting for payment rate changes, we do not consider that facilities may have changed their behavior in response to payment rate changes. If the profitability of treating Medicare patients declined, then facilities may no longer have as much financial incentive to offer services that attract Medicare beneficiaries as inpatients. Third, our analysis excludes the Medicare Advantage population, which more than doubled over this time period and experienced smaller declines in inpatient use over our study years.^31,32 Fourth, our analysis does not include spending on services provided outside of inpatient episodes, so we do not estimate how much declines in episode-related spending contributed to overall Medicare spending. Finally, as with the trends noted for sepsis and pneumonia,⁹ some of the changes in diagnosis categories might reflect changes in coding practices to ensure that conditions with higher DRG payment rates are listed as the primary diagnosis, even if the actual services rendered or conditions treated did not change.

Over an 8-year period, Medicare spending per beneficiary on inpatient episodes, including all services immediately preceding and following hospitalizations, declined by 8.9% after taking into account payment rate increases. This broad shift away from inpatient services among all Medicare beneficiaries suggests policymakers should aim for payment policies that balance financial sustainability for hospitals and associated facilities with more efficient use of inpatient and related services.

The authors thank Sunita Thapa, Lucas Stewart, Christine Lai, and Liliana Podczerwinski for contributions in data analysis and manuscript preparation.

The rate of inpatient admissions among adults aged 65 years and older has decreased by approximately 25% since 2000.^1,2 This long-term trend raises important questions about inpatient-related spending in the traditional Medicare program for hospitals and providers who treat beneficiaries after a hospitalization. As traditional Medicare’s most expensive sector (accounting for 21% of all Medicare spending³), reducing hospitalizations is often championed as an opportunity to moderate Medicare spending growth.

Medicare’s ability to achieve significant savings from declining inpatient use may be tempered by a shift toward more expensive hospitalizations. If marginal hospitalizations among healthier beneficiaries are avoided, then the remaining inpatient users may be sicker and have greater spending per hospitalization and greater need for follow-up services. This study examines trends in Medicare spending related to episodes initiated by an inpatient stay because of its importance to overall Medicare spending and the implications for several Medicare value-based payment initiatives. In care models seeking to contain spending at a population level, such as accountable care organizations and managed care plans, reducing inpatient use and associated services may have the largest impact in curbing overall spending growth per beneficiary. Other models focused on spending at an episode level, including bundled payment initiatives, may face challenges if inpatient episodes become more expensive over time.

As Medicare shifts toward value-based payments, hospitalists and other hospital leaders are often involved in redesigning care delivery models for the hospital or accountable care organization (eg, through readmission reduction initiatives, post–acute care coordination, and bundled-care delivery programs). Not all savings strategies rely on providers to change how services are delivered; Medicare can modify payment rates, such as Affordable Care Act provisions that slowed how quickly Medicare payment rates increased.⁴ For clinicians to navigate the shift toward new payment models, it is important to recognize how each of these elements—declining hospital admissions, spending per inpatient episode, and payment rates—affect spending trends for inpatient services and associated care. Previous articles on overall Medicare inpatient spending have examined inpatient stays alone⁵ or focused mainly on spending per episode^6,7 without quantifying how these elements contributed to overall episode-related Medicare spending per beneficiary. This article addresses this gap by demonstrating how inpatient-related spending trends reflect each component.

This study examined trends in Medicare’s spending on inpatient episodes during the years 2009 to 2017. We described changes in the volume and spending on inpatient-initiated episodes across several dimensions, including beneficiary-level and hospitalization-level factors. We examined whether declines in spending associated with fewer inpatient-initiated episodes have been offset by increased spending per episode and how spending would have differed without changes in Medicare payment rates.

Episode Definition

We constructed an episode measure that captured traditional Medicare spending for 30 days prior to hospital admission, hospitalization duration, and 90 days following hospital discharge (additional details in the Appendix). As with bundled payments that include pre- and postdischarge services, this window allowed us to observe any services that preceded or followed a hospitalization. Using Medicare Part A, B, and D claims data for the years 2008 to 2018, we captured spending across all sectors for episodes with an index hospital admission in the years 2009 to 2017. If a beneficiary died during an episode, we measured healthcare spending until death. We excluded episodes where beneficiaries did not have traditional Medicare Part A and B for the entire episode or lived outside the 50 states or Washington, DC.

Any acute hospitalization triggered a new episode, with one exception: if a beneficiary was discharged and readmitted within 90 days for the same diagnosis-related group (DRG), then the readmission did not trigger a new episode. The spending for that readmission was attributed to the prior hospital stay. In effect, the annual number of episodes is equivalent to the annual number of hospital admissions minus subsequent rehospitalizations for the same DRG. Neither observation stays nor hospitalizations in inpatient rehabilitation, psychiatric, or long-term facilities were considered acute hospital admissions.

We assigned claims from noninpatient sectors to an episode based on whether the claim start date fell within the episode window. All traditional Medicare sectors were measured, including outpatient services, physician claims, post–acute care services, and Medicare Part D prescription drug events.

Our analysis aimed to measure all spending related to inpatient episodes without double-counting spending for overlapping episodes. If episodes overlapped, then spending for overlapping days was weighted to be evenly divided across episodes.

Outcome Measures

The study’s main outcomes summarized episode trends across the entire traditional Medicare population, including beneficiaries without an episode, in annual mean number of episodes per beneficiary and annual mean episode-related spending per beneficiary. The denominator of these measures is person-years, or total number of beneficiary months with Medicare Part A and B coverage divided by 12. The annual mean number of episodes per beneficiary is the total number of episodes initiated in a calendar year divided by person-years. The annual mean episode-related spending per beneficiary is the total amount of spending attributed to episodes divided by person-years. We also measured annual mean spending per episode, or total amount of spending attributed to episodes divided by the total number of episodes.

Medicare annually updates each sector’s payment rates for several factors, including inflation. We constructed an index for each sector to adjust for these annual payment rate changes. We also accounted for sequestration measures in effect since April 2013 that reduced Medicare payments to all sectors by 2%. We report our spending measures twice, with and without adjusting for changes in payment rates. Adjusted numbers reflect payment rates in effect in 2015.

Analysis Approach

We present annual trends on changes in the number of inpatient episodes per beneficiary, mean episode-related spending per beneficiary, and mean spending per episode. To quantify how changes in episode-related spending per beneficiary reflect changes in the number of episodes per beneficiary vs changes in spending per episode, we modified an approach implemented by Rosen and colleagues.⁸We calculated how much episode-related spending per beneficiary would have changed between 2009 and 2017 if spending per episode remained at 2009 levels but the number of episodes per beneficiary declined, as observed between 2009 and 2017 (see example calculation in Appendix). Conversely, we estimated how much episode-related spending per beneficiary would have changed if the number of episodes per beneficiary remained at 2009 levels but spending per episode increased, as observed between 2009 and 2017. In reality, the number of episodes per beneficiary and spending per episode concurrently changed, so the decomposition also includes an interaction term that quantifies how much of the change in spending reflects changes in both factors. We present these estimates for all sectors and separately for inpatient and all other sectors.

To better understand which beneficiaries have declining inpatient use, we performed stratified analyses describing changes in the number of episodes per beneficiary between 2009 and 2017, spending per episode, and total episode-related spending per beneficiary. We report these measures for several subpopulations defined by age, sex, race, dual-eligible status, and whether the beneficiary used long-term nursing home services during the episode’s calendar year. Descriptive statistics also detail how these measures changed between 2009 and 2017 for episodes stratified by characteristics of the index hospital stay: planned vs unplanned, medical vs surgical, and any use of intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit services. We also stratify study measures by whether an episode included any use of post–acute care services (skilled nursing facility, home health, or inpatient rehabilitation facility use). Finally, we aggregate the episodes into major diagnostic categories (MDCs) based on the index hospital stay’s DRG to report study outcomes by condition. Because of a shift in coding hospitalizations for pneumonia as sepsis,^9,10 we exclude these two diseases from their respective MDCs and analyze them jointly as a unique category.

Changes in Number of Inpatient Episodes and Related Spending

From 2009 to 2017, the number of inpatient episodes per 1000 traditional Medicare beneficiaries declined from 326 to 267 (Table 1), or a relative decline of 18.2% (Figure 1). The total volume of inpatient episodes declined by only 13.4%, from 10.2 million to 8.8 million, reflecting that the size of the traditional Medicare population grew during these years. Over the same years, mean payment-rate–adjusted spending per episode increased 11.4% from $20,891 to $23,273.

When considering overall episode-related spending, the large decline in the volume of episodes outweighed increased spending per episode: the mean amount of episode-related Medicare spending per beneficiary decreased 8.9% from $6810 to $6206 (Table 1), or a net change of $604 (Figure 2). This net change reflects decreased spending due to fewer episodes per beneficiary ($1239 reduction in episode-related spending) offset by increased spending per episode (translating to a $776 increase in episode-related spending per beneficiary). These two factors, plus their interaction reflecting the combined influence of these factors ($141), comprise the overall change in episode-related spending per beneficiary over this period.

When these estimates are calculated separately for the inpatient sector and all other sectors, the inpatient sector experienced small increases in spending associated with greater spending per episode ($304) compared with noninpatient sectors ($472). Accordingly, the inpatient sector had a larger net decline in episode-related spending per beneficiary ($420) than noninpatient sectors ($184) after taking into account declining episode volume.

As expected, episode-related spending increased more when measures were not adjusted for annual payment rate increases. Without such adjustment, mean spending per episode increased 25.5%, and episode-related spending per beneficiary was nearly flat (2.6% between 2009 and 2017 [Figure 1]). The decline in unadjusted spending associated with fewer episodes ($1138) was offset by the spending increase associated with higher spending per episode ($1592) (Figure 2).

Analyses Stratified by Beneficiary Characteristics

Every population examined had declines in the number of inpatient episodes, even beneficiaries with more frequent inpatient use (Table 2). Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 85 years and older, the mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries declined by 12.7%, from 524 to 457. Populations with less frequent inpatient use often experienced larger relative declines in number of episodes than populations with more frequent inpatient use. For example, the mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries decreased by 17.7% for beneficiaries without nursing home use (306 to 252), as compared with an 8.1% decline for beneficiaries with nursing home use (from 888 to 816). In contrast, populations with less frequent inpatient use had larger relative increases in spending per episode with adjustment for payment rate changes. For example, spending per episode increased by 13.1% for beneficiaries aged 65 to 74 years ($20,904 to $23,644), but only by 8.6% for beneficiaries 85 years and older ($20,384 to $22,138).

Analyses Stratified by Service Use Characteristics

Some types of inpatient episodes had larger declines in the number of episodes, including episodes with planned admissions for the index hospital stay (28.8% decline from 68 to 48 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries) and episodes without post–acute care use (23.9% decline from 169 to 129 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries) (Appendix Table). In contrast, declines in the number of episodes were similar for index hospital admissions that did or did not involve ICU use (17.8% and 18.3% reduction in mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively) or that included a surgical procedure or not (17.1% versus 18.6%, respectively). Several types of inpatient episodes had larger increases in spending per episode, such as a 15.1% increase for planned admissions and a 13.2% increase for hospitalizations without ICU use.

According to diagnosis information for an episode’s index hospital stay, inpatient episodes related to conditions affecting the circulatory system had the largest decline in mean number of episodes, decreasing by 31.8% from 78 to 53 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries (Appendix Table). Episodes for other diseases had much smaller declines in volume. Admissions for diagnoses of pneumonia or sepsis had notable increases in the volume of episodes, increasing by 20.7% from 25 to 30 admissions per 1000 beneficiaries.

Medicare spending per beneficiary on inpatient episodes, including services provided pre- and post hospitalization, declined by 8.9% from 2009 to 2017 after adjusting for payment rate changes. This decline reflects two components. First, the number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries declined by 18.2%. Although the extent of this decrease varied across populations, every group examined had declines in inpatient use. In particular, hospitalizations for conditions affecting the circulatory system, such as heart attacks and cardiac procedures, decreased. Second, as inpatient volume declined, spending per episode increased by 11.4% to an average of $23,273 in 2017. This increase in spending per episode offset how much overall Medicare spending on episode-related care declined.

Medicare is increasingly challenging hospitals to demonstrate the value of inpatient services and associated treatment, which requires hospital leaders to recognize how their facilities’ spending trends relate to these national patterns. Understanding how much national episode-related spending has decreased over time with declining inpatient volume can help an accountable care organization evaluate whether it is feasible to achieve significant savings by reducing hospitalizations. Bundled payment providers focused on managing spending per episode can benefit from identifying which types of hospitalizations have increased spending per episode, especially for certain diagnoses.

These results also highlight the continued importance of a perennial factor in Medicare spending: payment rates. If Medicare payment rates had not increased over our study period, Medicare spending per inpatient episode would have increased by only 11%. Actual Medicare spending per episode increased by 25%, demonstrating that over half of the relative increase in spending per episode reflected increases in Medicare’s payment rates.

Increased spending per episode, even after adjustment for payment rate changes, suggests that services provided during an episode have increased in intensity or shifted toward higher-cost treatments. In order to understand how Medicare episode-related spending changed without introducing assumptions about factors underlying that change, our analysis did not adjust for inpatient acuity. We observed a smaller decline in the volume of hospitalizations with post–acute care use but similar decreases in the volume of hospitalizations with and without ICU use. This finding is consistent with previous evidence suggesting inpatient acuity has increased, with some caveats. The case-mix index for inpatients increased in Medicare claims,¹¹ but some of this increase may reflect expanded opportunities for hospitals to document comorbidities.¹² Geographic areas with larger decreases in inpatient admissions between 2010 and 2013 experienced greater risk-adjusted mortality among inpatients, consistent with a higher level of acuity among inpatients.¹³ The volume of ICU admissions declined, but ICU patients were more likely to have organ failure and to use complex services, such as mechanical ventilation, than patients admitted in earlier years.¹⁴

When interpreting these trends, several points are notable. The underlying health of the Medicare population may contribute to declining inpatient use but is difficult to quantify. The observed decline in cardiac-related hospitalizations is consistent with evidence that the impact of ischemic heart disease, the leading source of disease or injury in the US population, has dramatically declined over recent decades¹⁵ and that the Medicare program has experienced large declines in overall spending and use related to cardiac conditions.^16-18

Other potential factors include a shift toward hospitals treating Medicare beneficiaries as outpatients during an observation stay instead of admitting them as inpatients. Observation stays have increased as traditional Medicare implemented measures to penalize readmissions and limit payments for short inpatient stays.^19-21 Even so, the increase in observation stays would have to be at least three times as large as described in other work to fully substitute for the decrease in inpatient stays: between the years 2007 and 2018, the number of observation stays per 1000 beneficiaries increased by only 26 stays, whereas the number of hospitalizations per 1000 beneficiaries decreased by 83 hospitalizations.²⁰

Outpatient services may also broaden treatment availability in alternative settings or enable beneficiaries to avoid inpatient treatment with appropriate preventative care.^22-27 These considerations are even more relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic spurred reduced admissions and shifted acute services outside of hospitals.^28,29 Some services, such as elective surgeries, have probably shifted from an inpatient to an outpatient setting, which would be consistent with our finding that there are larger relative declines in planned hospitalizations. Although this analysis does not capture spending for outpatient services that are not linked to an inpatient admission, prior work demonstrates that annual growth in total Medicare spending per beneficiary (episode related or not) has recently declined for the inpatient sector but increased for outpatient and physician sectors.³⁰ By offering other outpatient services, hospitals may be able to recoup some declining inpatient revenues. However, outpatient services are reimbursed at a lower rate than inpatient services, suggesting these trends may create financial pressure for hospitals.

There are several limitations to our analysis. First, our analysis is not designed to uncover the reason for the shift away from inpatient services nor to analyze how it has affected beneficiaries’ overall quality of care. Second, in accounting for payment rate changes, we do not consider that facilities may have changed their behavior in response to payment rate changes. If the profitability of treating Medicare patients declined, then facilities may no longer have as much financial incentive to offer services that attract Medicare beneficiaries as inpatients. Third, our analysis excludes the Medicare Advantage population, which more than doubled over this time period and experienced smaller declines in inpatient use over our study years.^31,32 Fourth, our analysis does not include spending on services provided outside of inpatient episodes, so we do not estimate how much declines in episode-related spending contributed to overall Medicare spending. Finally, as with the trends noted for sepsis and pneumonia,⁹ some of the changes in diagnosis categories might reflect changes in coding practices to ensure that conditions with higher DRG payment rates are listed as the primary diagnosis, even if the actual services rendered or conditions treated did not change.

Over an 8-year period, Medicare spending per beneficiary on inpatient episodes, including all services immediately preceding and following hospitalizations, declined by 8.9% after taking into account payment rate increases. This broad shift away from inpatient services among all Medicare beneficiaries suggests policymakers should aim for payment policies that balance financial sustainability for hospitals and associated facilities with more efficient use of inpatient and related services.

The authors thank Sunita Thapa, Lucas Stewart, Christine Lai, and Liliana Podczerwinski for contributions in data analysis and manuscript preparation.

The rate of inpatient admissions among adults aged 65 years and older has decreased by approximately 25% since 2000.^1,2 This long-term trend raises important questions about inpatient-related spending in the traditional Medicare program for hospitals and providers who treat beneficiaries after a hospitalization. As traditional Medicare’s most expensive sector (accounting for 21% of all Medicare spending³), reducing hospitalizations is often championed as an opportunity to moderate Medicare spending growth.

Medicare’s ability to achieve significant savings from declining inpatient use may be tempered by a shift toward more expensive hospitalizations. If marginal hospitalizations among healthier beneficiaries are avoided, then the remaining inpatient users may be sicker and have greater spending per hospitalization and greater need for follow-up services. This study examines trends in Medicare spending related to episodes initiated by an inpatient stay because of its importance to overall Medicare spending and the implications for several Medicare value-based payment initiatives. In care models seeking to contain spending at a population level, such as accountable care organizations and managed care plans, reducing inpatient use and associated services may have the largest impact in curbing overall spending growth per beneficiary. Other models focused on spending at an episode level, including bundled payment initiatives, may face challenges if inpatient episodes become more expensive over time.

As Medicare shifts toward value-based payments, hospitalists and other hospital leaders are often involved in redesigning care delivery models for the hospital or accountable care organization (eg, through readmission reduction initiatives, post–acute care coordination, and bundled-care delivery programs). Not all savings strategies rely on providers to change how services are delivered; Medicare can modify payment rates, such as Affordable Care Act provisions that slowed how quickly Medicare payment rates increased.⁴ For clinicians to navigate the shift toward new payment models, it is important to recognize how each of these elements—declining hospital admissions, spending per inpatient episode, and payment rates—affect spending trends for inpatient services and associated care. Previous articles on overall Medicare inpatient spending have examined inpatient stays alone⁵ or focused mainly on spending per episode^6,7 without quantifying how these elements contributed to overall episode-related Medicare spending per beneficiary. This article addresses this gap by demonstrating how inpatient-related spending trends reflect each component.

This study examined trends in Medicare’s spending on inpatient episodes during the years 2009 to 2017. We described changes in the volume and spending on inpatient-initiated episodes across several dimensions, including beneficiary-level and hospitalization-level factors. We examined whether declines in spending associated with fewer inpatient-initiated episodes have been offset by increased spending per episode and how spending would have differed without changes in Medicare payment rates.

Episode Definition

We constructed an episode measure that captured traditional Medicare spending for 30 days prior to hospital admission, hospitalization duration, and 90 days following hospital discharge (additional details in the Appendix). As with bundled payments that include pre- and postdischarge services, this window allowed us to observe any services that preceded or followed a hospitalization. Using Medicare Part A, B, and D claims data for the years 2008 to 2018, we captured spending across all sectors for episodes with an index hospital admission in the years 2009 to 2017. If a beneficiary died during an episode, we measured healthcare spending until death. We excluded episodes where beneficiaries did not have traditional Medicare Part A and B for the entire episode or lived outside the 50 states or Washington, DC.

Any acute hospitalization triggered a new episode, with one exception: if a beneficiary was discharged and readmitted within 90 days for the same diagnosis-related group (DRG), then the readmission did not trigger a new episode. The spending for that readmission was attributed to the prior hospital stay. In effect, the annual number of episodes is equivalent to the annual number of hospital admissions minus subsequent rehospitalizations for the same DRG. Neither observation stays nor hospitalizations in inpatient rehabilitation, psychiatric, or long-term facilities were considered acute hospital admissions.

We assigned claims from noninpatient sectors to an episode based on whether the claim start date fell within the episode window. All traditional Medicare sectors were measured, including outpatient services, physician claims, post–acute care services, and Medicare Part D prescription drug events.

Our analysis aimed to measure all spending related to inpatient episodes without double-counting spending for overlapping episodes. If episodes overlapped, then spending for overlapping days was weighted to be evenly divided across episodes.

Outcome Measures

The study’s main outcomes summarized episode trends across the entire traditional Medicare population, including beneficiaries without an episode, in annual mean number of episodes per beneficiary and annual mean episode-related spending per beneficiary. The denominator of these measures is person-years, or total number of beneficiary months with Medicare Part A and B coverage divided by 12. The annual mean number of episodes per beneficiary is the total number of episodes initiated in a calendar year divided by person-years. The annual mean episode-related spending per beneficiary is the total amount of spending attributed to episodes divided by person-years. We also measured annual mean spending per episode, or total amount of spending attributed to episodes divided by the total number of episodes.

Medicare annually updates each sector’s payment rates for several factors, including inflation. We constructed an index for each sector to adjust for these annual payment rate changes. We also accounted for sequestration measures in effect since April 2013 that reduced Medicare payments to all sectors by 2%. We report our spending measures twice, with and without adjusting for changes in payment rates. Adjusted numbers reflect payment rates in effect in 2015.

Analysis Approach

We present annual trends on changes in the number of inpatient episodes per beneficiary, mean episode-related spending per beneficiary, and mean spending per episode. To quantify how changes in episode-related spending per beneficiary reflect changes in the number of episodes per beneficiary vs changes in spending per episode, we modified an approach implemented by Rosen and colleagues.⁸We calculated how much episode-related spending per beneficiary would have changed between 2009 and 2017 if spending per episode remained at 2009 levels but the number of episodes per beneficiary declined, as observed between 2009 and 2017 (see example calculation in Appendix). Conversely, we estimated how much episode-related spending per beneficiary would have changed if the number of episodes per beneficiary remained at 2009 levels but spending per episode increased, as observed between 2009 and 2017. In reality, the number of episodes per beneficiary and spending per episode concurrently changed, so the decomposition also includes an interaction term that quantifies how much of the change in spending reflects changes in both factors. We present these estimates for all sectors and separately for inpatient and all other sectors.

To better understand which beneficiaries have declining inpatient use, we performed stratified analyses describing changes in the number of episodes per beneficiary between 2009 and 2017, spending per episode, and total episode-related spending per beneficiary. We report these measures for several subpopulations defined by age, sex, race, dual-eligible status, and whether the beneficiary used long-term nursing home services during the episode’s calendar year. Descriptive statistics also detail how these measures changed between 2009 and 2017 for episodes stratified by characteristics of the index hospital stay: planned vs unplanned, medical vs surgical, and any use of intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit services. We also stratify study measures by whether an episode included any use of post–acute care services (skilled nursing facility, home health, or inpatient rehabilitation facility use). Finally, we aggregate the episodes into major diagnostic categories (MDCs) based on the index hospital stay’s DRG to report study outcomes by condition. Because of a shift in coding hospitalizations for pneumonia as sepsis,^9,10 we exclude these two diseases from their respective MDCs and analyze them jointly as a unique category.

Changes in Number of Inpatient Episodes and Related Spending

From 2009 to 2017, the number of inpatient episodes per 1000 traditional Medicare beneficiaries declined from 326 to 267 (Table 1), or a relative decline of 18.2% (Figure 1). The total volume of inpatient episodes declined by only 13.4%, from 10.2 million to 8.8 million, reflecting that the size of the traditional Medicare population grew during these years. Over the same years, mean payment-rate–adjusted spending per episode increased 11.4% from $20,891 to $23,273.

When considering overall episode-related spending, the large decline in the volume of episodes outweighed increased spending per episode: the mean amount of episode-related Medicare spending per beneficiary decreased 8.9% from $6810 to $6206 (Table 1), or a net change of $604 (Figure 2). This net change reflects decreased spending due to fewer episodes per beneficiary ($1239 reduction in episode-related spending) offset by increased spending per episode (translating to a $776 increase in episode-related spending per beneficiary). These two factors, plus their interaction reflecting the combined influence of these factors ($141), comprise the overall change in episode-related spending per beneficiary over this period.

When these estimates are calculated separately for the inpatient sector and all other sectors, the inpatient sector experienced small increases in spending associated with greater spending per episode ($304) compared with noninpatient sectors ($472). Accordingly, the inpatient sector had a larger net decline in episode-related spending per beneficiary ($420) than noninpatient sectors ($184) after taking into account declining episode volume.

As expected, episode-related spending increased more when measures were not adjusted for annual payment rate increases. Without such adjustment, mean spending per episode increased 25.5%, and episode-related spending per beneficiary was nearly flat (2.6% between 2009 and 2017 [Figure 1]). The decline in unadjusted spending associated with fewer episodes ($1138) was offset by the spending increase associated with higher spending per episode ($1592) (Figure 2).

Analyses Stratified by Beneficiary Characteristics

Every population examined had declines in the number of inpatient episodes, even beneficiaries with more frequent inpatient use (Table 2). Among Medicare beneficiaries aged 85 years and older, the mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries declined by 12.7%, from 524 to 457. Populations with less frequent inpatient use often experienced larger relative declines in number of episodes than populations with more frequent inpatient use. For example, the mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries decreased by 17.7% for beneficiaries without nursing home use (306 to 252), as compared with an 8.1% decline for beneficiaries with nursing home use (from 888 to 816). In contrast, populations with less frequent inpatient use had larger relative increases in spending per episode with adjustment for payment rate changes. For example, spending per episode increased by 13.1% for beneficiaries aged 65 to 74 years ($20,904 to $23,644), but only by 8.6% for beneficiaries 85 years and older ($20,384 to $22,138).

Analyses Stratified by Service Use Characteristics

Some types of inpatient episodes had larger declines in the number of episodes, including episodes with planned admissions for the index hospital stay (28.8% decline from 68 to 48 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries) and episodes without post–acute care use (23.9% decline from 169 to 129 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries) (Appendix Table). In contrast, declines in the number of episodes were similar for index hospital admissions that did or did not involve ICU use (17.8% and 18.3% reduction in mean number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively) or that included a surgical procedure or not (17.1% versus 18.6%, respectively). Several types of inpatient episodes had larger increases in spending per episode, such as a 15.1% increase for planned admissions and a 13.2% increase for hospitalizations without ICU use.

According to diagnosis information for an episode’s index hospital stay, inpatient episodes related to conditions affecting the circulatory system had the largest decline in mean number of episodes, decreasing by 31.8% from 78 to 53 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries (Appendix Table). Episodes for other diseases had much smaller declines in volume. Admissions for diagnoses of pneumonia or sepsis had notable increases in the volume of episodes, increasing by 20.7% from 25 to 30 admissions per 1000 beneficiaries.

Medicare spending per beneficiary on inpatient episodes, including services provided pre- and post hospitalization, declined by 8.9% from 2009 to 2017 after adjusting for payment rate changes. This decline reflects two components. First, the number of episodes per 1000 beneficiaries declined by 18.2%. Although the extent of this decrease varied across populations, every group examined had declines in inpatient use. In particular, hospitalizations for conditions affecting the circulatory system, such as heart attacks and cardiac procedures, decreased. Second, as inpatient volume declined, spending per episode increased by 11.4% to an average of $23,273 in 2017. This increase in spending per episode offset how much overall Medicare spending on episode-related care declined.

Medicare is increasingly challenging hospitals to demonstrate the value of inpatient services and associated treatment, which requires hospital leaders to recognize how their facilities’ spending trends relate to these national patterns. Understanding how much national episode-related spending has decreased over time with declining inpatient volume can help an accountable care organization evaluate whether it is feasible to achieve significant savings by reducing hospitalizations. Bundled payment providers focused on managing spending per episode can benefit from identifying which types of hospitalizations have increased spending per episode, especially for certain diagnoses.

These results also highlight the continued importance of a perennial factor in Medicare spending: payment rates. If Medicare payment rates had not increased over our study period, Medicare spending per inpatient episode would have increased by only 11%. Actual Medicare spending per episode increased by 25%, demonstrating that over half of the relative increase in spending per episode reflected increases in Medicare’s payment rates.

Increased spending per episode, even after adjustment for payment rate changes, suggests that services provided during an episode have increased in intensity or shifted toward higher-cost treatments. In order to understand how Medicare episode-related spending changed without introducing assumptions about factors underlying that change, our analysis did not adjust for inpatient acuity. We observed a smaller decline in the volume of hospitalizations with post–acute care use but similar decreases in the volume of hospitalizations with and without ICU use. This finding is consistent with previous evidence suggesting inpatient acuity has increased, with some caveats. The case-mix index for inpatients increased in Medicare claims,¹¹ but some of this increase may reflect expanded opportunities for hospitals to document comorbidities.¹² Geographic areas with larger decreases in inpatient admissions between 2010 and 2013 experienced greater risk-adjusted mortality among inpatients, consistent with a higher level of acuity among inpatients.¹³ The volume of ICU admissions declined, but ICU patients were more likely to have organ failure and to use complex services, such as mechanical ventilation, than patients admitted in earlier years.¹⁴

When interpreting these trends, several points are notable. The underlying health of the Medicare population may contribute to declining inpatient use but is difficult to quantify. The observed decline in cardiac-related hospitalizations is consistent with evidence that the impact of ischemic heart disease, the leading source of disease or injury in the US population, has dramatically declined over recent decades¹⁵ and that the Medicare program has experienced large declines in overall spending and use related to cardiac conditions.^16-18

Other potential factors include a shift toward hospitals treating Medicare beneficiaries as outpatients during an observation stay instead of admitting them as inpatients. Observation stays have increased as traditional Medicare implemented measures to penalize readmissions and limit payments for short inpatient stays.^19-21 Even so, the increase in observation stays would have to be at least three times as large as described in other work to fully substitute for the decrease in inpatient stays: between the years 2007 and 2018, the number of observation stays per 1000 beneficiaries increased by only 26 stays, whereas the number of hospitalizations per 1000 beneficiaries decreased by 83 hospitalizations.²⁰

Outpatient services may also broaden treatment availability in alternative settings or enable beneficiaries to avoid inpatient treatment with appropriate preventative care.^22-27 These considerations are even more relevant as the COVID-19 pandemic spurred reduced admissions and shifted acute services outside of hospitals.^28,29 Some services, such as elective surgeries, have probably shifted from an inpatient to an outpatient setting, which would be consistent with our finding that there are larger relative declines in planned hospitalizations. Although this analysis does not capture spending for outpatient services that are not linked to an inpatient admission, prior work demonstrates that annual growth in total Medicare spending per beneficiary (episode related or not) has recently declined for the inpatient sector but increased for outpatient and physician sectors.³⁰ By offering other outpatient services, hospitals may be able to recoup some declining inpatient revenues. However, outpatient services are reimbursed at a lower rate than inpatient services, suggesting these trends may create financial pressure for hospitals.

There are several limitations to our analysis. First, our analysis is not designed to uncover the reason for the shift away from inpatient services nor to analyze how it has affected beneficiaries’ overall quality of care. Second, in accounting for payment rate changes, we do not consider that facilities may have changed their behavior in response to payment rate changes. If the profitability of treating Medicare patients declined, then facilities may no longer have as much financial incentive to offer services that attract Medicare beneficiaries as inpatients. Third, our analysis excludes the Medicare Advantage population, which more than doubled over this time period and experienced smaller declines in inpatient use over our study years.^31,32 Fourth, our analysis does not include spending on services provided outside of inpatient episodes, so we do not estimate how much declines in episode-related spending contributed to overall Medicare spending. Finally, as with the trends noted for sepsis and pneumonia,⁹ some of the changes in diagnosis categories might reflect changes in coding practices to ensure that conditions with higher DRG payment rates are listed as the primary diagnosis, even if the actual services rendered or conditions treated did not change.

Over an 8-year period, Medicare spending per beneficiary on inpatient episodes, including all services immediately preceding and following hospitalizations, declined by 8.9% after taking into account payment rate increases. This broad shift away from inpatient services among all Medicare beneficiaries suggests policymakers should aim for payment policies that balance financial sustainability for hospitals and associated facilities with more efficient use of inpatient and related services.

The authors thank Sunita Thapa, Lucas Stewart, Christine Lai, and Liliana Podczerwinski for contributions in data analysis and manuscript preparation.

Women who had a preterm delivery were at least 1.6 times as likely to develop hypertension over the next decade as those who had full-term deliveries, based on data from a national cohort study of more than 2 million women.

Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been associated with chronic hypertension as well as with preterm delivery, but the independent role of preterm delivery in chronic hypertension risk remains unclear, Casey Crump, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote. “A better understanding of the long-term hypertension risks associated with preterm delivery is needed to improve risk stratification, clinical monitoring, and CVD [cardiovascular disease] prevention in women.”

In a study published in JAMA Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 2,195,989 women with 4,308,286 singleton deliveries in Sweden from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 2015. Women with preexisting hypertension before their first pregnancy were excluded. Pregnancy duration was based on maternal reports of the last menstrual period for patients in the 1970s, and based on ultrasound estimates in the 1980s and beyond. Pregnancy duration was divided into six groups in terms of completed weeks of gestation: extremely preterm (22-27 weeks), moderately preterm (28-33 weeks), late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), full term (39-41 weeks), and post term (≥42 weeks). Full-term delivery was used as the reference, and the three preterm groups were combined for summaries of preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks).

Overall, women who delivered at less than 37 weeks’ gestation had a 1.6-fold increased risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.67) within the next 10 years, compared with women who delivered full term after controlling for preeclampsia, other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal factors.

When further stratified by pregnancy duration, the aHRs for extremely preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared with full-term deliveries were 2.23, 1.85, 1.55, and 1.26, respectively, in the first decade after delivery. Each additional week of pregnancy was associated with a mean 7% reduction in hypertension risk (a HR, 0.93).

The increased hypertension risk following preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) persisted at 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30-43 years, with aHRs of 1.40, 1.20, and 1.12, respectively. Early-term delivery at 37-38 weeks also carried an increased risk of long-term hypertension compared with full-term delivery, with aHRs of 1.12 and 1.06 at 20-29 years and 30-43 years, respectively.

“Cosibling analyses suggested that these findings were only partially explained by familial (genetic and/or early-life environmental) factors that are shared determinants of both preterm delivery and hypertension,” the researchers noted. The findings suggest that preterm delivery itself may contribute to or affect the pathophysiology that leads to cardiovascular disease, they added, hypothesizing that endothelial dysfunction caused by preterm delivery may cause functional impairments in the microvasculature.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of detailed records to verify hypertension and the use of data from a single country, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, the use of highly complete prenatal and birth records to minimize selection bias, and the long-term follow-up.

The results are consistent with those from previous studies, and support the recognition of preterm delivery as a lifetime risk factor for hypertension, but future studies should focus on racial and ethnic subgroups already at increased risk for both preterm delivery and hypertension, they added.

“Additional follow-up will be needed to examine these associations in older adulthood when hypertension increasingly and disproportionately affects women,” they concluded.

Data highlight the need for patient and provider education

“This study furthers our knowledge regarding long-term complications associated with the frequent pregnancy complication of preterm delivery,” Stephen S. Crane, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine specialist in private practice in Orlando, said in an interview. “Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and often goes unrecognized in women. There are shared risk factors among women and men for developing CVD, the most common being hypertension. However, women have the unique risk factor of pregnancy and its attendant complications including preeclampsia, glucose intolerance, and preterm delivery. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy often lead to indicated premature delivery, and are associated with development of chronic hypertension and subsequent CVD. However, prior data suggest that preterm delivery itself is a risk factor for developing chronic hypertension later in life.

“The current study, which evaluates one of the most complete population data sets with up to 43 years of follow-up, is the first to assess for familial determinants by cosibling analysis, and supports preterm delivery as an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension,” he said. The study results illustrate that this risk is longstanding, and that recurrent preterm birth further increases the risk of developing hypertension.

Dr. Crane said he was not surprised by the study findings, given that inflammatory processes have been linked to the development of hypertension and CVD. “Similarly, inflammatory processes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of preterm labor and inflammatory cytokines may also play a role in normal term labor. Therefore, it is not surprising that preterm delivery would be a marker for the risk of development of hypertension, as both may be responses to underlying inflammatory processes. Identification of these underlying inflammatory processes and methods for prevention will be critical if we are to decrease both the incidence of preterm birth and CVD.

“As prenatal care may be the only medical care women obtain, it is important to take this opportunity to educate patients regarding their long-term risks of developing hypertension and the need for long-term follow up. Interventions that may help reduce the risk for recurrent preterm birth and long-term risks for developing hypertension and CVD include weight loss, increased activity, and smoking cessation; the resources to achieve these goals need to be shared with patients,” he said.

“Knowledge deficits both on the part of the provider and patient may be a significant barrier to intervention that may be overcome with improved education,” said Dr. Crane. “Care providers need education regarding the long-term risks associated with a history of preterm delivery in order to better educate their patients regarding both prevention of recurrent preterm birth and the development of hypertension and CVD.” However, socioeconomic status, education level, and the inability to obtain further health care remain common barriers to intervention for many women.

“Additional research is needed to identify the causes of inflammatory processes leading to preterm delivery and risks for hypertension and CVD,” said Dr. Crane. “Only after the causes are identified can treatments be sought to successfully treat these conditions.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the Swedish Research Council; the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; and an Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning (Agreement on Medical Training and Research) (ALF) project grant from Region Skåne/Lund University. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Crane had any financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who had a preterm delivery were at least 1.6 times as likely to develop hypertension over the next decade as those who had full-term deliveries, based on data from a national cohort study of more than 2 million women.

Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been associated with chronic hypertension as well as with preterm delivery, but the independent role of preterm delivery in chronic hypertension risk remains unclear, Casey Crump, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote. “A better understanding of the long-term hypertension risks associated with preterm delivery is needed to improve risk stratification, clinical monitoring, and CVD [cardiovascular disease] prevention in women.”

In a study published in JAMA Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 2,195,989 women with 4,308,286 singleton deliveries in Sweden from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 2015. Women with preexisting hypertension before their first pregnancy were excluded. Pregnancy duration was based on maternal reports of the last menstrual period for patients in the 1970s, and based on ultrasound estimates in the 1980s and beyond. Pregnancy duration was divided into six groups in terms of completed weeks of gestation: extremely preterm (22-27 weeks), moderately preterm (28-33 weeks), late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), full term (39-41 weeks), and post term (≥42 weeks). Full-term delivery was used as the reference, and the three preterm groups were combined for summaries of preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks).

Overall, women who delivered at less than 37 weeks’ gestation had a 1.6-fold increased risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.67) within the next 10 years, compared with women who delivered full term after controlling for preeclampsia, other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal factors.

When further stratified by pregnancy duration, the aHRs for extremely preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared with full-term deliveries were 2.23, 1.85, 1.55, and 1.26, respectively, in the first decade after delivery. Each additional week of pregnancy was associated with a mean 7% reduction in hypertension risk (a HR, 0.93).

The increased hypertension risk following preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) persisted at 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30-43 years, with aHRs of 1.40, 1.20, and 1.12, respectively. Early-term delivery at 37-38 weeks also carried an increased risk of long-term hypertension compared with full-term delivery, with aHRs of 1.12 and 1.06 at 20-29 years and 30-43 years, respectively.

“Cosibling analyses suggested that these findings were only partially explained by familial (genetic and/or early-life environmental) factors that are shared determinants of both preterm delivery and hypertension,” the researchers noted. The findings suggest that preterm delivery itself may contribute to or affect the pathophysiology that leads to cardiovascular disease, they added, hypothesizing that endothelial dysfunction caused by preterm delivery may cause functional impairments in the microvasculature.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of detailed records to verify hypertension and the use of data from a single country, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, the use of highly complete prenatal and birth records to minimize selection bias, and the long-term follow-up.

The results are consistent with those from previous studies, and support the recognition of preterm delivery as a lifetime risk factor for hypertension, but future studies should focus on racial and ethnic subgroups already at increased risk for both preterm delivery and hypertension, they added.

“Additional follow-up will be needed to examine these associations in older adulthood when hypertension increasingly and disproportionately affects women,” they concluded.

Data highlight the need for patient and provider education

“This study furthers our knowledge regarding long-term complications associated with the frequent pregnancy complication of preterm delivery,” Stephen S. Crane, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine specialist in private practice in Orlando, said in an interview. “Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and often goes unrecognized in women. There are shared risk factors among women and men for developing CVD, the most common being hypertension. However, women have the unique risk factor of pregnancy and its attendant complications including preeclampsia, glucose intolerance, and preterm delivery. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy often lead to indicated premature delivery, and are associated with development of chronic hypertension and subsequent CVD. However, prior data suggest that preterm delivery itself is a risk factor for developing chronic hypertension later in life.

“The current study, which evaluates one of the most complete population data sets with up to 43 years of follow-up, is the first to assess for familial determinants by cosibling analysis, and supports preterm delivery as an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension,” he said. The study results illustrate that this risk is longstanding, and that recurrent preterm birth further increases the risk of developing hypertension.

Dr. Crane said he was not surprised by the study findings, given that inflammatory processes have been linked to the development of hypertension and CVD. “Similarly, inflammatory processes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of preterm labor and inflammatory cytokines may also play a role in normal term labor. Therefore, it is not surprising that preterm delivery would be a marker for the risk of development of hypertension, as both may be responses to underlying inflammatory processes. Identification of these underlying inflammatory processes and methods for prevention will be critical if we are to decrease both the incidence of preterm birth and CVD.

“As prenatal care may be the only medical care women obtain, it is important to take this opportunity to educate patients regarding their long-term risks of developing hypertension and the need for long-term follow up. Interventions that may help reduce the risk for recurrent preterm birth and long-term risks for developing hypertension and CVD include weight loss, increased activity, and smoking cessation; the resources to achieve these goals need to be shared with patients,” he said.

“Knowledge deficits both on the part of the provider and patient may be a significant barrier to intervention that may be overcome with improved education,” said Dr. Crane. “Care providers need education regarding the long-term risks associated with a history of preterm delivery in order to better educate their patients regarding both prevention of recurrent preterm birth and the development of hypertension and CVD.” However, socioeconomic status, education level, and the inability to obtain further health care remain common barriers to intervention for many women.

“Additional research is needed to identify the causes of inflammatory processes leading to preterm delivery and risks for hypertension and CVD,” said Dr. Crane. “Only after the causes are identified can treatments be sought to successfully treat these conditions.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the Swedish Research Council; the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; and an Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning (Agreement on Medical Training and Research) (ALF) project grant from Region Skåne/Lund University. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Crane had any financial conflicts to disclose.

Women who had a preterm delivery were at least 1.6 times as likely to develop hypertension over the next decade as those who had full-term deliveries, based on data from a national cohort study of more than 2 million women.

Pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy have been associated with chronic hypertension as well as with preterm delivery, but the independent role of preterm delivery in chronic hypertension risk remains unclear, Casey Crump, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote. “A better understanding of the long-term hypertension risks associated with preterm delivery is needed to improve risk stratification, clinical monitoring, and CVD [cardiovascular disease] prevention in women.”

In a study published in JAMA Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 2,195,989 women with 4,308,286 singleton deliveries in Sweden from Jan. 1, 1973, to Dec. 31, 2015. Women with preexisting hypertension before their first pregnancy were excluded. Pregnancy duration was based on maternal reports of the last menstrual period for patients in the 1970s, and based on ultrasound estimates in the 1980s and beyond. Pregnancy duration was divided into six groups in terms of completed weeks of gestation: extremely preterm (22-27 weeks), moderately preterm (28-33 weeks), late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), full term (39-41 weeks), and post term (≥42 weeks). Full-term delivery was used as the reference, and the three preterm groups were combined for summaries of preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks).

Overall, women who delivered at less than 37 weeks’ gestation had a 1.6-fold increased risk of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.67) within the next 10 years, compared with women who delivered full term after controlling for preeclampsia, other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and maternal factors.

When further stratified by pregnancy duration, the aHRs for extremely preterm, moderately preterm, late preterm, and early term, compared with full-term deliveries were 2.23, 1.85, 1.55, and 1.26, respectively, in the first decade after delivery. Each additional week of pregnancy was associated with a mean 7% reduction in hypertension risk (a HR, 0.93).

The increased hypertension risk following preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks) persisted at 10-19 years, 20-29 years, and 30-43 years, with aHRs of 1.40, 1.20, and 1.12, respectively. Early-term delivery at 37-38 weeks also carried an increased risk of long-term hypertension compared with full-term delivery, with aHRs of 1.12 and 1.06 at 20-29 years and 30-43 years, respectively.

“Cosibling analyses suggested that these findings were only partially explained by familial (genetic and/or early-life environmental) factors that are shared determinants of both preterm delivery and hypertension,” the researchers noted. The findings suggest that preterm delivery itself may contribute to or affect the pathophysiology that leads to cardiovascular disease, they added, hypothesizing that endothelial dysfunction caused by preterm delivery may cause functional impairments in the microvasculature.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of detailed records to verify hypertension and the use of data from a single country, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population, the use of highly complete prenatal and birth records to minimize selection bias, and the long-term follow-up.

The results are consistent with those from previous studies, and support the recognition of preterm delivery as a lifetime risk factor for hypertension, but future studies should focus on racial and ethnic subgroups already at increased risk for both preterm delivery and hypertension, they added.

“Additional follow-up will be needed to examine these associations in older adulthood when hypertension increasingly and disproportionately affects women,” they concluded.

Data highlight the need for patient and provider education

“This study furthers our knowledge regarding long-term complications associated with the frequent pregnancy complication of preterm delivery,” Stephen S. Crane, MD, an ob.gyn. and maternal-fetal medicine specialist in private practice in Orlando, said in an interview. “Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and often goes unrecognized in women. There are shared risk factors among women and men for developing CVD, the most common being hypertension. However, women have the unique risk factor of pregnancy and its attendant complications including preeclampsia, glucose intolerance, and preterm delivery. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy often lead to indicated premature delivery, and are associated with development of chronic hypertension and subsequent CVD. However, prior data suggest that preterm delivery itself is a risk factor for developing chronic hypertension later in life.

“The current study, which evaluates one of the most complete population data sets with up to 43 years of follow-up, is the first to assess for familial determinants by cosibling analysis, and supports preterm delivery as an independent risk factor for the development of hypertension,” he said. The study results illustrate that this risk is longstanding, and that recurrent preterm birth further increases the risk of developing hypertension.

Dr. Crane said he was not surprised by the study findings, given that inflammatory processes have been linked to the development of hypertension and CVD. “Similarly, inflammatory processes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of preterm labor and inflammatory cytokines may also play a role in normal term labor. Therefore, it is not surprising that preterm delivery would be a marker for the risk of development of hypertension, as both may be responses to underlying inflammatory processes. Identification of these underlying inflammatory processes and methods for prevention will be critical if we are to decrease both the incidence of preterm birth and CVD.

“As prenatal care may be the only medical care women obtain, it is important to take this opportunity to educate patients regarding their long-term risks of developing hypertension and the need for long-term follow up. Interventions that may help reduce the risk for recurrent preterm birth and long-term risks for developing hypertension and CVD include weight loss, increased activity, and smoking cessation; the resources to achieve these goals need to be shared with patients,” he said.

“Knowledge deficits both on the part of the provider and patient may be a significant barrier to intervention that may be overcome with improved education,” said Dr. Crane. “Care providers need education regarding the long-term risks associated with a history of preterm delivery in order to better educate their patients regarding both prevention of recurrent preterm birth and the development of hypertension and CVD.” However, socioeconomic status, education level, and the inability to obtain further health care remain common barriers to intervention for many women.

“Additional research is needed to identify the causes of inflammatory processes leading to preterm delivery and risks for hypertension and CVD,” said Dr. Crane. “Only after the causes are identified can treatments be sought to successfully treat these conditions.”

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the Swedish Research Council; the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation; and an Avtal om Läkarutbildning och Forskning (Agreement on Medical Training and Research) (ALF) project grant from Region Skåne/Lund University. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Crane had any financial conflicts to disclose.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Cancer centers with a high use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer show similar improvements in median overall survival and larger declines in short-term mortality than in centers with low use of this treatment. This is according to a study published in JAMA Oncology, suggesting that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be a suitable first-line treatment approach for many patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer.

“There is considerable variation in practice. Some centers administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy to 75% of patients with advanced ovarian cancers, others use the approach very infrequently,” said Alexander Melamed, MD, MPH, of Columbia University, New York.

“I hope that those clinicians who have been worried about the negative impacts of too frequent administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be reassured by this study and may come to use this good treatment more often.”

Research has shown that, compared with primary cytoreductive surgery, the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has similar long-term survival and improved perioperative outcomes in patients with ovarian cancer. While the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy has increased, many experts continue to recommend upfront surgery as the preferred treatment for these patients. 

“In part, these recommendations are based on flawed interpretations of real-world data. Specifically, many observational studies have concluded that upfront surgery results in better survival than neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on study designs that ignored the fact that patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the real word are sicker and have more extensive cancer than those who receive upfront surgery,” Dr. Melamed said.

In this difference-in-differences comparative effectiveness analysis, researchers asked if the difference in adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy by U.S. cancer centers for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer was associated with differences in median overall survival and 1-year all-cause mortality.

“By assessing how this divergence in practice impacted patient outcomes we were able to infer how frequent use of neoadjuvant impacts survival in ovarian cancer patients. This study design allowed us to sidestep the problem of selection bias that has plagued many other observational studies in this space,” Dr. Melamed explained.

This observational study included 39,299 women with stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer, diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 who were followed to the end of 2018, and treated at one of 664 cancer programs. Patients treated in programs that increased neoadjuvant chemotherapy administration had greater improvements in 1-year mortality (difference-in-differences, −2.1%; 95% confidence interval, −3.7 to −0.5) and equivalent gains in median overall survival  (difference-in-differences, 0.9 months; 95% CI, −1.9 to 3.7 months), compared with those treated in programs that used the treatment infrequently.

“For a long time, experts have suggested that the apparent discordance between randomized controlled trials and real-world studies that compare neoadjuvant chemotherapy to upfront surgery for ovarian cancer might mean that the randomized trials are not applicable to real-world practice. What is significant about our findings, is that, when more appropriate study methods are used to analyze the real-world data, the apparent contradiction between real-world and randomized studies is resolved.

“We found that, just as one would guess based on the findings of randomized trials, patients treated in the centers that increased the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not have any decrement in long-term survival, but that short-term mortality did improve more in these centers than in centers that administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy rarely,” she said.

Dr. Melamed said that the findings should “spur a reappraisal” of what clinicians consider the default treatment for women with stage IIIC and IV ovarian cancer.

Taken together with randomized controlled trials, “the evidence may be at a point where it is now time to consider neoadjuvant chemotherapy as the default approach to patients with bulky carcinomatosis, and that primary surgery may be a reasonable alternative for a select group of healthy, young patients with low-volume metastasis.

“Other factors like the route of adjuvant chemotherapy may also need to be considered. However, I believe the belief that aggressive primary debulking is beneficial for most women with advanced ovarian cancer is outdated,” Dr. Melamed said.

No relevant conflicts of interest were reported for this research.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a combination pill containing celecoxib and tramadol (Seglentis) for the treatment of adults with acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and tramadol is an opioid agonist. Seglentis contains 56 mg of celecoxib and 44 mg of tramadol.

“The unique co-crystal formulation of Seglentis provides effective pain relief via a multimodal approach,” Craig A. Sponseller, MD, chief medical officer of Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, said in a news release.

Esteve Pharmaceuticals has entered into an agreement with Kowa Pharmaceuticals America to commercialize the pain medicine in the United States, with a launch planned for early 2022.

“Seglentis uses four different and complementary mechanisms of analgesia and offers healthcare providers an important option to treat acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require opioid treatment and for which alternative treatments are inadequate,” Dr. Sponseller said.

Because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse with opioids, even at recommended doses, the FDA will require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Seglentis.

The label states that the drug should be initiated as two tablets every 12 hours as needed and should be prescribed for the shortest duration consistent with individual patient treatment goals.

Patients should be monitored for respiratory depression, especially within the first 24 to 72 hours of initiating therapy with Seglentis.

Prescribers should discuss naloxone (Narcan) with patients and consider prescribing the opioid antagonist naloxone based on the patient’s risk factors for overdose.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

In patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), donafenib was superior to sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS), according to a head-to-head study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This novel multikinase inhibitor and deuterated sorafenib derivative also showed improved safety and tolerability, rendering it a potential first-line monotherapy for patients with advanced HCC.

“An improvement in the pharmacotherapy of advanced HCC remains a clinical need,” wrote Feng Bi, MD, of Sichuan University, in Chengdu, China, and colleagues.

Liver cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with HCC representing 90% of liver malignancies. HCC most commonly occurs in people with liver disease, particularly in those with chronic hepatitis B and C and although rare, HCC is the ninth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Most patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage with a median survival of 6-8 months. Sorafenib, the standard first-line therapy for advanced HCC, has demonstrated the median OS of 10.7 to 14.7 months. No other monotherapy has shown a significant improvement in OS, compared with sorafenib. Donafenib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in phase 1 studies.

This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line donafenib, compared with sorafenib, in 668 Chinese patients with advanced HCC. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily oral donafenib 0.2 g or sorafenib 0.4 g until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was OS, tested for noninferiority and superiority. 

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib significantly prolonged OS, 10.3 and 12.1 months, respectively, (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, 0.699-0.988; 0.83; P = .0245), and the superiority criteria for OS were met. Donafenib also presented improved safety and tolerability. Common drug-related adverse events, such as hand-foot skin reactions and diarrhea, and drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events, occurred in fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib, (38% vs. 50%; P = .0018). The authors noted that this lower frequency in adverse events with donafenib “contributed to improved patient adherence and decreased levels of drug interruption and discontinuation.”

Donafenib is a novel, oral, small-molecule, multikinase inhibitor that suppresses tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, and Raf kinases. It is a derivative of sorafenib and in June 2021, it was approved in China as a treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for patients who have not received systemic treatment. It is not yet available in the United States.

“This pivotal head-to-head comparison study is the first to demonstrate noninferiority and superiority of a monotherapy, donafenib, with statistically significant extension in OS over sorafenib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC,” the authors wrote. “Compared with international trials, patients in this study presented with more severe baseline disease states, further emphasizing the positive response observed with donafenib.”

Another study, published in the same issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, compared tremelimumab and durvalumab as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable HCC, found that use a single priming dose of tremelimumab combined with durvalumab showed the best benefit-risk profile.

Despite the extensive recent focus on its cost, insulin use in the United States remains dominated by insulin glargine and other analogs, as well as pen devices for delivery, new research shows.

The findings come from a nationally representative audit of outpatient care with input from nearly 5,000 physicians who prescribed insulin to patients with type 2 diabetes in 2016-2020.

The dramatic rise in the price of insulin in the United States has been extensively discussed in recent years, particularly with the newer analogs as compared with older human insulins.

Few studies indicate analog insulins better than human insulins

“Our findings suggest that even with increased public scrutiny for insulin products ... [the market is] dominated by the use of insulin analogs and insulin pen delivery devices, with persistent uptake of newer products as they are approved,” lead author Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

“Though newer insulins offer potentially greater flexibility with reduced hypoglycemia for many patients, they are also much more costly, with minimal to no head-to-head studies suggesting significant differences in glucose-lowering efficacy when compared to human insulins,” she stressed.

“We found it surprising that, despite the much-publicized concerns regarding insulin costs, analog insulins continue to represent more than 80% of insulin visits in the U.S.” added Dr. Kalyani, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

However, as expected, the study also revealed a gradual increased uptake in the use of biosimilar insulins as more have been introduced to the market.

Dr. Kalyani advised, “Clinicians should be aware of their individual prescribing patterns for insulin and consider the affordability of insulin for patients as part of shared decision-making during clinic visits, particularly given the greater financial strain that many patients have faced during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the rising societal costs for diabetes care.”

The research was published online October 12 in JAMA Network Open by Dr. Kalyani and colleagues.

Analogs prevailed, while biosimilar use rose

The data come from the Health National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a quarterly sampling of approximately 4,800 physicians that provides nationally representative diagnostic and prescribing information on patients treated by office-based physicians in the United States.

Overall, there were 27,860,691 insulin treatment visits for type 2 diabetes in 2016-2020. Of those, long-acting analog insulins (glargine [Lantus], detemir [Levemir], and degludec [Tresiba]) accounted for 67.3% of treatment visits in 2016 and 74.8% of treatment visits in 2020.

Rapid-acting insulin analogs (lispro [Humalog], aspart [Novolog], faster aspart [Fiasp], and glulisine [Apidra]) accounted for about 21.2% of visits in 2016 and about 16.5% in 2020.

On the other hand, intermediate- and short-acting human insulins (NPH and regular) accounted for just 3.7% of visits in 2016 and 2.6% in 2020.

Grouped together, the long- and short-acting analogs accounted for 92.7% of visits in 2016 and 86.3% in 2020, while the human insulins represented just 7.3% of visits in 2016 and 5.5% in 2020.

The biosimilar analog insulins (glargine and lispro) first appeared in the database in 2017, accounting for 2.6% of visits that year and 8.2% by 2020.

Overall, the number of visits for insulin treatment declined by 18% between 2016 and 2020, from 6.0 million to 4.9 million. That drop may be due to multiple factors, Dr. Kalyani said.

“Recently updated clinical practice guidelines from professional societies such as the American Diabetes Association recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to insulin when injectable medications are being considered [for type 2 diabetes],” she noted.

“In addition, during the pandemic, patients may not have been seeing their health care providers for routine diabetes care as often as before ... These and other factors may have contributed to the decrease in insulin visits that we observed.”

By specific insulins, glargine has topped the list all along, accounting for about half of all treatment visits, at 52.6% in 2020. Degludec came in second, at 17.4%, and lispro third, at 9.5%.

Use of pen devices also increased

The proportion of treatment visits for insulin vials/syringes declined from 63.9% in 2016 to 41.1% in 2020, while visits for insulin pens rose from 36.1% to 58.7%.

“Many pens are more costly compared to vials of the same insulin product. Interestingly, some studies have found that use of insulin pens may promote greater patient adherence to insulin and, as a result, more broadly decrease health care costs associated with diabetes. However, we did not specifically investigate the cost of insulin in our study,” Dr. Kalyani noted.

The proportion of visits for “newer” insulins, defined as those approved in 2010 or later, rose from 18.1% in 2016 to 40.9% in 2020, while the concurrent drop for insulins approved prior to 2010 was from 81.9% to 59.1%.

“The findings of our study provide insight into potential drivers of insulin costs in the U.S. and may inform health policy,” the researchers conclude.

Funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Kalyani currently serves on the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

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

Despite the extensive recent focus on its cost, insulin use in the United States remains dominated by insulin glargine and other analogs, as well as pen devices for delivery, new research shows.

The findings come from a nationally representative audit of outpatient care with input from nearly 5,000 physicians who prescribed insulin to patients with type 2 diabetes in 2016-2020.

The dramatic rise in the price of insulin in the United States has been extensively discussed in recent years, particularly with the newer analogs as compared with older human insulins.

Few studies indicate analog insulins better than human insulins

“Our findings suggest that even with increased public scrutiny for insulin products ... [the market is] dominated by the use of insulin analogs and insulin pen delivery devices, with persistent uptake of newer products as they are approved,” lead author Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

“Though newer insulins offer potentially greater flexibility with reduced hypoglycemia for many patients, they are also much more costly, with minimal to no head-to-head studies suggesting significant differences in glucose-lowering efficacy when compared to human insulins,” she stressed.

“We found it surprising that, despite the much-publicized concerns regarding insulin costs, analog insulins continue to represent more than 80% of insulin visits in the U.S.” added Dr. Kalyani, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

However, as expected, the study also revealed a gradual increased uptake in the use of biosimilar insulins as more have been introduced to the market.

Dr. Kalyani advised, “Clinicians should be aware of their individual prescribing patterns for insulin and consider the affordability of insulin for patients as part of shared decision-making during clinic visits, particularly given the greater financial strain that many patients have faced during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the rising societal costs for diabetes care.”

The research was published online October 12 in JAMA Network Open by Dr. Kalyani and colleagues.

Analogs prevailed, while biosimilar use rose

The data come from the Health National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a quarterly sampling of approximately 4,800 physicians that provides nationally representative diagnostic and prescribing information on patients treated by office-based physicians in the United States.

Overall, there were 27,860,691 insulin treatment visits for type 2 diabetes in 2016-2020. Of those, long-acting analog insulins (glargine [Lantus], detemir [Levemir], and degludec [Tresiba]) accounted for 67.3% of treatment visits in 2016 and 74.8% of treatment visits in 2020.

Rapid-acting insulin analogs (lispro [Humalog], aspart [Novolog], faster aspart [Fiasp], and glulisine [Apidra]) accounted for about 21.2% of visits in 2016 and about 16.5% in 2020.

On the other hand, intermediate- and short-acting human insulins (NPH and regular) accounted for just 3.7% of visits in 2016 and 2.6% in 2020.

Grouped together, the long- and short-acting analogs accounted for 92.7% of visits in 2016 and 86.3% in 2020, while the human insulins represented just 7.3% of visits in 2016 and 5.5% in 2020.

The biosimilar analog insulins (glargine and lispro) first appeared in the database in 2017, accounting for 2.6% of visits that year and 8.2% by 2020.

Overall, the number of visits for insulin treatment declined by 18% between 2016 and 2020, from 6.0 million to 4.9 million. That drop may be due to multiple factors, Dr. Kalyani said.

“Recently updated clinical practice guidelines from professional societies such as the American Diabetes Association recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to insulin when injectable medications are being considered [for type 2 diabetes],” she noted.

“In addition, during the pandemic, patients may not have been seeing their health care providers for routine diabetes care as often as before ... These and other factors may have contributed to the decrease in insulin visits that we observed.”

By specific insulins, glargine has topped the list all along, accounting for about half of all treatment visits, at 52.6% in 2020. Degludec came in second, at 17.4%, and lispro third, at 9.5%.

Use of pen devices also increased

The proportion of treatment visits for insulin vials/syringes declined from 63.9% in 2016 to 41.1% in 2020, while visits for insulin pens rose from 36.1% to 58.7%.

“Many pens are more costly compared to vials of the same insulin product. Interestingly, some studies have found that use of insulin pens may promote greater patient adherence to insulin and, as a result, more broadly decrease health care costs associated with diabetes. However, we did not specifically investigate the cost of insulin in our study,” Dr. Kalyani noted.

The proportion of visits for “newer” insulins, defined as those approved in 2010 or later, rose from 18.1% in 2016 to 40.9% in 2020, while the concurrent drop for insulins approved prior to 2010 was from 81.9% to 59.1%.

“The findings of our study provide insight into potential drivers of insulin costs in the U.S. and may inform health policy,” the researchers conclude.

Funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Kalyani currently serves on the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

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

Despite the extensive recent focus on its cost, insulin use in the United States remains dominated by insulin glargine and other analogs, as well as pen devices for delivery, new research shows.

The findings come from a nationally representative audit of outpatient care with input from nearly 5,000 physicians who prescribed insulin to patients with type 2 diabetes in 2016-2020.

The dramatic rise in the price of insulin in the United States has been extensively discussed in recent years, particularly with the newer analogs as compared with older human insulins.

Few studies indicate analog insulins better than human insulins

“Our findings suggest that even with increased public scrutiny for insulin products ... [the market is] dominated by the use of insulin analogs and insulin pen delivery devices, with persistent uptake of newer products as they are approved,” lead author Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

“Though newer insulins offer potentially greater flexibility with reduced hypoglycemia for many patients, they are also much more costly, with minimal to no head-to-head studies suggesting significant differences in glucose-lowering efficacy when compared to human insulins,” she stressed.

“We found it surprising that, despite the much-publicized concerns regarding insulin costs, analog insulins continue to represent more than 80% of insulin visits in the U.S.” added Dr. Kalyani, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

However, as expected, the study also revealed a gradual increased uptake in the use of biosimilar insulins as more have been introduced to the market.

Dr. Kalyani advised, “Clinicians should be aware of their individual prescribing patterns for insulin and consider the affordability of insulin for patients as part of shared decision-making during clinic visits, particularly given the greater financial strain that many patients have faced during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the rising societal costs for diabetes care.”

The research was published online October 12 in JAMA Network Open by Dr. Kalyani and colleagues.

Analogs prevailed, while biosimilar use rose

The data come from the Health National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a quarterly sampling of approximately 4,800 physicians that provides nationally representative diagnostic and prescribing information on patients treated by office-based physicians in the United States.

Overall, there were 27,860,691 insulin treatment visits for type 2 diabetes in 2016-2020. Of those, long-acting analog insulins (glargine [Lantus], detemir [Levemir], and degludec [Tresiba]) accounted for 67.3% of treatment visits in 2016 and 74.8% of treatment visits in 2020.

Rapid-acting insulin analogs (lispro [Humalog], aspart [Novolog], faster aspart [Fiasp], and glulisine [Apidra]) accounted for about 21.2% of visits in 2016 and about 16.5% in 2020.

On the other hand, intermediate- and short-acting human insulins (NPH and regular) accounted for just 3.7% of visits in 2016 and 2.6% in 2020.

Grouped together, the long- and short-acting analogs accounted for 92.7% of visits in 2016 and 86.3% in 2020, while the human insulins represented just 7.3% of visits in 2016 and 5.5% in 2020.

The biosimilar analog insulins (glargine and lispro) first appeared in the database in 2017, accounting for 2.6% of visits that year and 8.2% by 2020.

Overall, the number of visits for insulin treatment declined by 18% between 2016 and 2020, from 6.0 million to 4.9 million. That drop may be due to multiple factors, Dr. Kalyani said.

“Recently updated clinical practice guidelines from professional societies such as the American Diabetes Association recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to insulin when injectable medications are being considered [for type 2 diabetes],” she noted.

“In addition, during the pandemic, patients may not have been seeing their health care providers for routine diabetes care as often as before ... These and other factors may have contributed to the decrease in insulin visits that we observed.”

By specific insulins, glargine has topped the list all along, accounting for about half of all treatment visits, at 52.6% in 2020. Degludec came in second, at 17.4%, and lispro third, at 9.5%.

Use of pen devices also increased

The proportion of treatment visits for insulin vials/syringes declined from 63.9% in 2016 to 41.1% in 2020, while visits for insulin pens rose from 36.1% to 58.7%.

“Many pens are more costly compared to vials of the same insulin product. Interestingly, some studies have found that use of insulin pens may promote greater patient adherence to insulin and, as a result, more broadly decrease health care costs associated with diabetes. However, we did not specifically investigate the cost of insulin in our study,” Dr. Kalyani noted.

The proportion of visits for “newer” insulins, defined as those approved in 2010 or later, rose from 18.1% in 2016 to 40.9% in 2020, while the concurrent drop for insulins approved prior to 2010 was from 81.9% to 59.1%.

“The findings of our study provide insight into potential drivers of insulin costs in the U.S. and may inform health policy,” the researchers conclude.

Funded in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Kalyani currently serves on the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

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

It’s hard for people to completely escape a history of obesity, even when they later achieve a healthy weight.

American adults who once had obesity but later achieved and maintained a healthy body mass index (BMI) normalized some, but not all, of the excess clinical risk associated with obesity in a review of data collected from about 20,000 people during a series of eight NHANES surveys.

Maia P. Smith, MD, reported the findings at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“For some conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the recovery [following a sharp drop in BMI] appears to be total, while for other conditions, like diabetes, the recovery is probabilistic. Some recover, but some don’t,” explained Dr. Smith in an interview.

“Weight loss reverses all, or essentially all, of the damage done by obesity in some people, but does not cause full reversal of the harm and does not fully resolve [type 2] diabetes in many others,” added Dr. Smith, an epidemiologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at St. George’s University, Grenada.

“The fact that ... analyses comparing formerly obese people to normal weight populations demonstrated improvement in population mean levels of hypertension and dyslipidemia is remarkable,” commented Rebecca T. Emeny, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who was not involved with Dr. Smith’s study.

“The observation that the individuals who were able to maintain normal weight after past obesity were still at greater risk for diabetes compared with the normal weight group speaks to the recent discussion of obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a problem of calories in and calories out,” said Dr. Emeny in an interview.

She cited a recent article that proposed a carbohydrate-insulin model for obesity in place of an energy-balance model. This, however, is still somewhat contentious.

Dr. Emeny also cautioned that “the results of this study compare populations. The design and analysis do not allow for interpretation of individual risk resulting from changes in weight.”
 

Those who formerly had obesity can reverse hypertension, dyslipidemia

The study by Dr. Smith and associates used data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is performed every 2 years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They used data from eight consecutive surveys starting in 1999-2000 and continuing through 2013-2014, yielding data from nearly 40,000 adults who were at least 20 years old.

In addition to the 326 people who formerly had obesity at some time previously during their life (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) but now had a healthy BMI, and 6,235 who were consistently at a healthy BMI, they also included 13,710 people who currently had obesity. They dropped the remaining survey participants who did not fit into one of these three categories.

The participants who formerly had obesity averaged 54 years old, compared with a mean age of 48 years among those with current obesity and 41 years among those who currently had a healthy BMI (who had never had obesity). The results showed no differences by sex, but those who formerly had obesity had a much higher smoking prevalence.

The people who reported a healthy BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m²) after previously having obesity had current prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were, respectively, 8% and 13% higher than the prevalence rates among adults who consistently maintained a healthy BMI – differences that were not significant.

In contrast, people who had current BMIs that indicated obesity had prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were each a significant threefold higher than those with a healthy BMI.

The 326 respondents who formerly had obesity but now were at a healthy BMI had a threefold higher prevalence of diabetes than did the 6,235 who consistently had maintained a healthy BMI. This was substantially less than the over sevenfold higher prevalence of diabetes among those who currently had obesity compared with those who always had a healthy BMI.

All these analyses were adjusted for the potential confounders of age, sex, smoking history, and ethnicity.
 

‘Quitting’ obesity better than current obesity

The finding that reaching a healthy BMI after a period of obesity could reverse some but not all risks associated with obesity is reminiscent of the effects of smoking, noted Dr. Smith.

“Never is better than ever, but quitting,” or dropping weight to reach a healthy BMI, “is better than current,” she concluded.

But Dr. Emeny said this interpretation, “while motivating and catchy, places emphasis on individual responsibility and choice rather than on social circumstances.”

Social effects “must be considered when evaluating population-level disparities in obesity-related cardiometabolic risk,” cautioned Dr. Emeny.

“’Quitting’ obesity is much more complicated than individual choice or ability.”

Dr. Smith also conceded that her analyses did not correct for the possible confounding effects that changes in diet or physical activity may have had on the observations.

“Neither diet nor physical activity has a well-known summary measure that we could have included as an adjuster,” she explained.

Dr. Smith and Dr. Emeny have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s hard for people to completely escape a history of obesity, even when they later achieve a healthy weight.

American adults who once had obesity but later achieved and maintained a healthy body mass index (BMI) normalized some, but not all, of the excess clinical risk associated with obesity in a review of data collected from about 20,000 people during a series of eight NHANES surveys.

Maia P. Smith, MD, reported the findings at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“For some conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the recovery [following a sharp drop in BMI] appears to be total, while for other conditions, like diabetes, the recovery is probabilistic. Some recover, but some don’t,” explained Dr. Smith in an interview.

“Weight loss reverses all, or essentially all, of the damage done by obesity in some people, but does not cause full reversal of the harm and does not fully resolve [type 2] diabetes in many others,” added Dr. Smith, an epidemiologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at St. George’s University, Grenada.

“The fact that ... analyses comparing formerly obese people to normal weight populations demonstrated improvement in population mean levels of hypertension and dyslipidemia is remarkable,” commented Rebecca T. Emeny, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who was not involved with Dr. Smith’s study.

“The observation that the individuals who were able to maintain normal weight after past obesity were still at greater risk for diabetes compared with the normal weight group speaks to the recent discussion of obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a problem of calories in and calories out,” said Dr. Emeny in an interview.

She cited a recent article that proposed a carbohydrate-insulin model for obesity in place of an energy-balance model. This, however, is still somewhat contentious.

Dr. Emeny also cautioned that “the results of this study compare populations. The design and analysis do not allow for interpretation of individual risk resulting from changes in weight.”
 

Those who formerly had obesity can reverse hypertension, dyslipidemia

The study by Dr. Smith and associates used data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is performed every 2 years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They used data from eight consecutive surveys starting in 1999-2000 and continuing through 2013-2014, yielding data from nearly 40,000 adults who were at least 20 years old.

In addition to the 326 people who formerly had obesity at some time previously during their life (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) but now had a healthy BMI, and 6,235 who were consistently at a healthy BMI, they also included 13,710 people who currently had obesity. They dropped the remaining survey participants who did not fit into one of these three categories.

The participants who formerly had obesity averaged 54 years old, compared with a mean age of 48 years among those with current obesity and 41 years among those who currently had a healthy BMI (who had never had obesity). The results showed no differences by sex, but those who formerly had obesity had a much higher smoking prevalence.

The people who reported a healthy BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m²) after previously having obesity had current prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were, respectively, 8% and 13% higher than the prevalence rates among adults who consistently maintained a healthy BMI – differences that were not significant.

In contrast, people who had current BMIs that indicated obesity had prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were each a significant threefold higher than those with a healthy BMI.

The 326 respondents who formerly had obesity but now were at a healthy BMI had a threefold higher prevalence of diabetes than did the 6,235 who consistently had maintained a healthy BMI. This was substantially less than the over sevenfold higher prevalence of diabetes among those who currently had obesity compared with those who always had a healthy BMI.

All these analyses were adjusted for the potential confounders of age, sex, smoking history, and ethnicity.
 

‘Quitting’ obesity better than current obesity

The finding that reaching a healthy BMI after a period of obesity could reverse some but not all risks associated with obesity is reminiscent of the effects of smoking, noted Dr. Smith.

“Never is better than ever, but quitting,” or dropping weight to reach a healthy BMI, “is better than current,” she concluded.

But Dr. Emeny said this interpretation, “while motivating and catchy, places emphasis on individual responsibility and choice rather than on social circumstances.”

Social effects “must be considered when evaluating population-level disparities in obesity-related cardiometabolic risk,” cautioned Dr. Emeny.

“’Quitting’ obesity is much more complicated than individual choice or ability.”

Dr. Smith also conceded that her analyses did not correct for the possible confounding effects that changes in diet or physical activity may have had on the observations.

“Neither diet nor physical activity has a well-known summary measure that we could have included as an adjuster,” she explained.

Dr. Smith and Dr. Emeny have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s hard for people to completely escape a history of obesity, even when they later achieve a healthy weight.

American adults who once had obesity but later achieved and maintained a healthy body mass index (BMI) normalized some, but not all, of the excess clinical risk associated with obesity in a review of data collected from about 20,000 people during a series of eight NHANES surveys.

Maia P. Smith, MD, reported the findings at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

“For some conditions, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, the recovery [following a sharp drop in BMI] appears to be total, while for other conditions, like diabetes, the recovery is probabilistic. Some recover, but some don’t,” explained Dr. Smith in an interview.

“Weight loss reverses all, or essentially all, of the damage done by obesity in some people, but does not cause full reversal of the harm and does not fully resolve [type 2] diabetes in many others,” added Dr. Smith, an epidemiologist in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at St. George’s University, Grenada.

“The fact that ... analyses comparing formerly obese people to normal weight populations demonstrated improvement in population mean levels of hypertension and dyslipidemia is remarkable,” commented Rebecca T. Emeny, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, New Hampshire, who was not involved with Dr. Smith’s study.

“The observation that the individuals who were able to maintain normal weight after past obesity were still at greater risk for diabetes compared with the normal weight group speaks to the recent discussion of obesity as a metabolic disorder rather than a problem of calories in and calories out,” said Dr. Emeny in an interview.

She cited a recent article that proposed a carbohydrate-insulin model for obesity in place of an energy-balance model. This, however, is still somewhat contentious.

Dr. Emeny also cautioned that “the results of this study compare populations. The design and analysis do not allow for interpretation of individual risk resulting from changes in weight.”
 

Those who formerly had obesity can reverse hypertension, dyslipidemia

The study by Dr. Smith and associates used data collected in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is performed every 2 years by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

They used data from eight consecutive surveys starting in 1999-2000 and continuing through 2013-2014, yielding data from nearly 40,000 adults who were at least 20 years old.

In addition to the 326 people who formerly had obesity at some time previously during their life (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) but now had a healthy BMI, and 6,235 who were consistently at a healthy BMI, they also included 13,710 people who currently had obesity. They dropped the remaining survey participants who did not fit into one of these three categories.

The participants who formerly had obesity averaged 54 years old, compared with a mean age of 48 years among those with current obesity and 41 years among those who currently had a healthy BMI (who had never had obesity). The results showed no differences by sex, but those who formerly had obesity had a much higher smoking prevalence.

The people who reported a healthy BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m²) after previously having obesity had current prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were, respectively, 8% and 13% higher than the prevalence rates among adults who consistently maintained a healthy BMI – differences that were not significant.

In contrast, people who had current BMIs that indicated obesity had prevalence rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia that were each a significant threefold higher than those with a healthy BMI.

The 326 respondents who formerly had obesity but now were at a healthy BMI had a threefold higher prevalence of diabetes than did the 6,235 who consistently had maintained a healthy BMI. This was substantially less than the over sevenfold higher prevalence of diabetes among those who currently had obesity compared with those who always had a healthy BMI.

All these analyses were adjusted for the potential confounders of age, sex, smoking history, and ethnicity.
 

‘Quitting’ obesity better than current obesity

The finding that reaching a healthy BMI after a period of obesity could reverse some but not all risks associated with obesity is reminiscent of the effects of smoking, noted Dr. Smith.

“Never is better than ever, but quitting,” or dropping weight to reach a healthy BMI, “is better than current,” she concluded.

But Dr. Emeny said this interpretation, “while motivating and catchy, places emphasis on individual responsibility and choice rather than on social circumstances.”

Social effects “must be considered when evaluating population-level disparities in obesity-related cardiometabolic risk,” cautioned Dr. Emeny.

“’Quitting’ obesity is much more complicated than individual choice or ability.”

Dr. Smith also conceded that her analyses did not correct for the possible confounding effects that changes in diet or physical activity may have had on the observations.

“Neither diet nor physical activity has a well-known summary measure that we could have included as an adjuster,” she explained.

Dr. Smith and Dr. Emeny have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

I recently saw a 62-year-old patient who had been struggling in her job at a law firm. She had been one of the top paralegals for over a decade, but recently had received a poor job performance. She told me she was forgetting things and was worried she might be developing dementia. Fortunately her problem stemmed from sleep apnea, and resolved with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy.

Wallace and Bucks performed a meta analysis of 42 studies of memory in patients with sleep apnea and found sleep apnea patients were impaired when compared to healthy controls on verbal episodic memory (immediate recall, delayed recall, learning, and recognition) and visuospatial episodic memory (immediate and delayed recall).¹ A meta-analysis by Olaithe and associates found an improvement in executive function in patients with sleep apnea who were treated with CPAP.² I think this is worth considering especially in your patients who have subjective memory disturbances and do not appear to have a mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

About 15 years ago I saw a 74-year-old man for nocturia. He had seen two urologists and had a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) without any real change in his nocturia. I trialed him on all sorts of medications, and he seemed to improve temporarily a little on trazodone (went from seven episodes a night to four).

Eventually, after several years, I sent him for a sleep study. He had severe sleep apnea (Apnea Hypopnea Index, 65; O₂ saturations as low as 60%). With treatment, his nocturia resolved. He went from seven episodes to two each night.

Zhou and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 studies looking at the association of sleep apnea with nocturia.³ They found that men with sleep apnea have a high incidence of nocturia.

Miyazato and colleagues looked at the effect of CPAP treatment on nighttime urine production in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.⁴ In this small study of 40 patients, mean nighttime voiding episodes decreased from 2.1 to 1.2 (P < .01).

I have seen several patients with night sweats who ended up having sleep apnea. These patients have had a resolution of their night sweats with sleep apnea treatment.

Arnardottir and colleagues found that obstructive sleep apnea was associated with frequent nocturnal sweating.⁵ They found that 31% of men and 33% of women with OSA had nocturnal sweating, compared with about 10% of the general population.

When the OSA patients were treated with positive airway pressure, the prevalence of nocturnal sweating decreased to 11.5%, which is similar to general population numbers. Given how common both sleep apnea and night sweats are, this is an important consideration as you evaluate night sweats.

I have seen many patients who have had atrial fibrillation and sleep apnea. Shapira-Daniels and colleagues did a prospective study of 188 patients with atrial fibrillation without a history of sleep apnea who were referred for ablation.⁶ All patients had home sleep studies, and testing was consistent with sleep apnea in 82% of patients.

Kanagala and associates found that patients with untreated sleep apnea had a greater chance of recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion.⁷ Recurrence of atrial fibrillation at 12 months was 82% in untreated OSA patients, higher than the 42% recurrence in the treated OSA group (P = .013) and the 53% recurrence in control patients.

I think sleep apnea evaluation should be strongly considered in patients with atrial fibrillation and should be done before referral for ablations.

Pearl: Consider sleep apnea as a possible cause of or contributing factor to the common primary care problems of cognitive concerns, nocturia, night sweats, and atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Wallace A and Bucks RS. Memory and obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2013;36(2):203. Epub 2013 Feb 1.

2. Olaithe M and Bucks RS. Executive dysfunction in OSA before and after treatment: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2013;36(9):1297. Epub 2013 Sep 1.

3. Zhou J et al. Association between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and nocturia: a meta-analysis. Sleep Breath. 2020 Dec;24(4):1293-8.

4. Miyauchi Y et al. Effect of the continuous positive airway pressure on the nocturnal urine volume or night-time frequency in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Urology 2015;85:333.

5. Arnardottir ES et al. Nocturnal sweating–a common symptom of obstructive sleep apnoea: the Icelandic sleep apnoea cohort. BMJ Open. 2013 May 14;3(5):e002795. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002795

6. Shapira-Daniels A et al. Prevalence of undiagnosed sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation and its impact on therapy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6(12):1499. Epub 2020 Aug 12.

7. Kanagala R et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2003;107(20):2589. Epub 2003 May 12.

I recently saw a 62-year-old patient who had been struggling in her job at a law firm. She had been one of the top paralegals for over a decade, but recently had received a poor job performance. She told me she was forgetting things and was worried she might be developing dementia. Fortunately her problem stemmed from sleep apnea, and resolved with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy.

Wallace and Bucks performed a meta analysis of 42 studies of memory in patients with sleep apnea and found sleep apnea patients were impaired when compared to healthy controls on verbal episodic memory (immediate recall, delayed recall, learning, and recognition) and visuospatial episodic memory (immediate and delayed recall).¹ A meta-analysis by Olaithe and associates found an improvement in executive function in patients with sleep apnea who were treated with CPAP.² I think this is worth considering especially in your patients who have subjective memory disturbances and do not appear to have a mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

About 15 years ago I saw a 74-year-old man for nocturia. He had seen two urologists and had a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) without any real change in his nocturia. I trialed him on all sorts of medications, and he seemed to improve temporarily a little on trazodone (went from seven episodes a night to four).

Eventually, after several years, I sent him for a sleep study. He had severe sleep apnea (Apnea Hypopnea Index, 65; O₂ saturations as low as 60%). With treatment, his nocturia resolved. He went from seven episodes to two each night.

Zhou and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 studies looking at the association of sleep apnea with nocturia.³ They found that men with sleep apnea have a high incidence of nocturia.

Miyazato and colleagues looked at the effect of CPAP treatment on nighttime urine production in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.⁴ In this small study of 40 patients, mean nighttime voiding episodes decreased from 2.1 to 1.2 (P < .01).

I have seen several patients with night sweats who ended up having sleep apnea. These patients have had a resolution of their night sweats with sleep apnea treatment.

Arnardottir and colleagues found that obstructive sleep apnea was associated with frequent nocturnal sweating.⁵ They found that 31% of men and 33% of women with OSA had nocturnal sweating, compared with about 10% of the general population.

When the OSA patients were treated with positive airway pressure, the prevalence of nocturnal sweating decreased to 11.5%, which is similar to general population numbers. Given how common both sleep apnea and night sweats are, this is an important consideration as you evaluate night sweats.

I have seen many patients who have had atrial fibrillation and sleep apnea. Shapira-Daniels and colleagues did a prospective study of 188 patients with atrial fibrillation without a history of sleep apnea who were referred for ablation.⁶ All patients had home sleep studies, and testing was consistent with sleep apnea in 82% of patients.

Kanagala and associates found that patients with untreated sleep apnea had a greater chance of recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion.⁷ Recurrence of atrial fibrillation at 12 months was 82% in untreated OSA patients, higher than the 42% recurrence in the treated OSA group (P = .013) and the 53% recurrence in control patients.

I think sleep apnea evaluation should be strongly considered in patients with atrial fibrillation and should be done before referral for ablations.

Pearl: Consider sleep apnea as a possible cause of or contributing factor to the common primary care problems of cognitive concerns, nocturia, night sweats, and atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Wallace A and Bucks RS. Memory and obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2013;36(2):203. Epub 2013 Feb 1.

2. Olaithe M and Bucks RS. Executive dysfunction in OSA before and after treatment: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2013;36(9):1297. Epub 2013 Sep 1.

3. Zhou J et al. Association between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and nocturia: a meta-analysis. Sleep Breath. 2020 Dec;24(4):1293-8.

4. Miyauchi Y et al. Effect of the continuous positive airway pressure on the nocturnal urine volume or night-time frequency in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Urology 2015;85:333.

5. Arnardottir ES et al. Nocturnal sweating–a common symptom of obstructive sleep apnoea: the Icelandic sleep apnoea cohort. BMJ Open. 2013 May 14;3(5):e002795. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002795

6. Shapira-Daniels A et al. Prevalence of undiagnosed sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation and its impact on therapy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6(12):1499. Epub 2020 Aug 12.

7. Kanagala R et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2003;107(20):2589. Epub 2003 May 12.

I recently saw a 62-year-old patient who had been struggling in her job at a law firm. She had been one of the top paralegals for over a decade, but recently had received a poor job performance. She told me she was forgetting things and was worried she might be developing dementia. Fortunately her problem stemmed from sleep apnea, and resolved with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy.

Wallace and Bucks performed a meta analysis of 42 studies of memory in patients with sleep apnea and found sleep apnea patients were impaired when compared to healthy controls on verbal episodic memory (immediate recall, delayed recall, learning, and recognition) and visuospatial episodic memory (immediate and delayed recall).¹ A meta-analysis by Olaithe and associates found an improvement in executive function in patients with sleep apnea who were treated with CPAP.² I think this is worth considering especially in your patients who have subjective memory disturbances and do not appear to have a mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

About 15 years ago I saw a 74-year-old man for nocturia. He had seen two urologists and had a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) without any real change in his nocturia. I trialed him on all sorts of medications, and he seemed to improve temporarily a little on trazodone (went from seven episodes a night to four).

Eventually, after several years, I sent him for a sleep study. He had severe sleep apnea (Apnea Hypopnea Index, 65; O₂ saturations as low as 60%). With treatment, his nocturia resolved. He went from seven episodes to two each night.

Zhou and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 studies looking at the association of sleep apnea with nocturia.³ They found that men with sleep apnea have a high incidence of nocturia.

Miyazato and colleagues looked at the effect of CPAP treatment on nighttime urine production in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.⁴ In this small study of 40 patients, mean nighttime voiding episodes decreased from 2.1 to 1.2 (P < .01).

I have seen several patients with night sweats who ended up having sleep apnea. These patients have had a resolution of their night sweats with sleep apnea treatment.

Arnardottir and colleagues found that obstructive sleep apnea was associated with frequent nocturnal sweating.⁵ They found that 31% of men and 33% of women with OSA had nocturnal sweating, compared with about 10% of the general population.

When the OSA patients were treated with positive airway pressure, the prevalence of nocturnal sweating decreased to 11.5%, which is similar to general population numbers. Given how common both sleep apnea and night sweats are, this is an important consideration as you evaluate night sweats.

I have seen many patients who have had atrial fibrillation and sleep apnea. Shapira-Daniels and colleagues did a prospective study of 188 patients with atrial fibrillation without a history of sleep apnea who were referred for ablation.⁶ All patients had home sleep studies, and testing was consistent with sleep apnea in 82% of patients.

Kanagala and associates found that patients with untreated sleep apnea had a greater chance of recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion.⁷ Recurrence of atrial fibrillation at 12 months was 82% in untreated OSA patients, higher than the 42% recurrence in the treated OSA group (P = .013) and the 53% recurrence in control patients.

I think sleep apnea evaluation should be strongly considered in patients with atrial fibrillation and should be done before referral for ablations.

Pearl: Consider sleep apnea as a possible cause of or contributing factor to the common primary care problems of cognitive concerns, nocturia, night sweats, and atrial fibrillation.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Wallace A and Bucks RS. Memory and obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2013;36(2):203. Epub 2013 Feb 1.

2. Olaithe M and Bucks RS. Executive dysfunction in OSA before and after treatment: a meta-analysis. Sleep. 2013;36(9):1297. Epub 2013 Sep 1.

3. Zhou J et al. Association between obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and nocturia: a meta-analysis. Sleep Breath. 2020 Dec;24(4):1293-8.

4. Miyauchi Y et al. Effect of the continuous positive airway pressure on the nocturnal urine volume or night-time frequency in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Urology 2015;85:333.

5. Arnardottir ES et al. Nocturnal sweating–a common symptom of obstructive sleep apnoea: the Icelandic sleep apnoea cohort. BMJ Open. 2013 May 14;3(5):e002795. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002795

6. Shapira-Daniels A et al. Prevalence of undiagnosed sleep apnea in patients with atrial fibrillation and its impact on therapy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6(12):1499. Epub 2020 Aug 12.

7. Kanagala R et al. Obstructive sleep apnea and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2003;107(20):2589. Epub 2003 May 12.